Interesting discussion about the big 3

[bharat297]

The Round Table "Go forward towards youth" October 23, 2007 Tony Greig: Hello and welcome to the Cricinfo Round Table. After the euphoria of India's ICC World Twenty20 win, it is agonising times for Indian cricket again as the Australians have bullied them into submission at home. And as is always the case with Indian cricket, the fans and the media are baying for blood. Is it time for India's ageing superstars to go? Should experience give way to the fearlessness of youth? Is Indian cricket better off without the big three - Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly? To analyse these questions and hopefully arrive at an answer, I have with me Ian Chappell, former captain of Australia, and Sanjay Manjrekar, former India batsman and someone who is well versed with the goings-on in Indian cricket. Welcome, gentlemen. There is constant chatter about how the big three of Indian cricket - Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dravid - need to be phased out. I'm not really sure that they need to be phased out, but there is speculation that they should, especially from the one-day arena. Just to start off this debate, do you feel such calls are justified? Let's hear from you first, Sanjay. Sanjay Manjrekar: I think people are looking at this issue in the wrong way, completely upside down. I think the focus of the people who have been given the responsibility of running Indian cricket should be, "Okay, we have this Indian one-day team. How has it fared in recent times? What sort of promise does it hold for the future?" I think these are the first thoughts that have to be there in their minds. The other should be a goal for the Indian team - a realistic goal; maybe reaching No. 2 in the world one-day rankings, or staying in the top three for the next four to five years. They have to be thinking, "These are our expectations; is this team fulfilling those expectations?" I think that is the way to look at it. The answer is, of course, no. India has been languishing in the middle of the one-day rankings. They were knocked out in the first round of the World Cup. There was that victory in the series in Ireland, but I don't know how much weight you can give to that. This Indian one-day team hasn't performed as per expectations. I think more is expected from them. Once they settle that, you need to start looking at personnel. It's not just about a Tendulkar or a Ganguly, it's about a, b, c, and d, and whether everybody is helping the team achieve its goals. I think this is how it needs to be looked at. TG: Ian, do you think the calls are justified? Ian Chappell: The first thing that you have got to do is pick your best team. That's more easily done in the Test match arena than in the one-day arena, because you are looking forward to a World Cup every four years as far as the 50-over team is concerned. At some point you have to start thinking whether the team you have is going to give you a chance of winning the World Cup. They probably have to start thinking about that now. Your priority as a selector should be to pick the best team, but there is no point picking your best team if you then say to yourself, "Well two or three of these guys aren't going to be here for the next World Cup." At some point, as a selector you've got to say to yourself, "Well, this might be our best team but if it's not going to help us win the World Cup, which is four years away, then we have got to decide when is the point where we start phasing some of these guys out and get younger players in who are going to give us a chance to win the World Cup." It's no good throwing guys out just because they are older. I saw the form of all three, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dravid, in England. That was the best I've seen Ganguly play in a long time. He looked very confident. I think Tendulkar has got himself sorted out a bit. He's never going to be the player that he used to be. Indian audiences are going to have to accept that fact, and I think he has accepted that too. Dravid struggled in the Test arena but played brilliantly at times in the one-day arena. At this stage I think they all have got something to offer to Indian cricket, but the question the selectors need to ask is: do they think all three are going to be there for the next World Cup or not. If not, then they need to start thinking very soon about phasing out the ones that they think won't be there. TG: Sanjay, do you think the current Indian selectors are strong enough to take this decision? What both you and Ian have just said is that there is a situation now where you have just got to bite the bullet as a selector. Do you think that's possible? I don't think this selection committee is strong. Unfortunately, the biggest bane of Indian cricket is the fact that the selectors and the important office bearers in the BCCI get affected by the popular mood in the country. They never take decisions that are really good for Indian cricket Sanjay Manjrekar SM: Well the answer is no. I don't think this selection committee is that strong. Unfortunately the biggest bane of Indian cricket is the fact that the selectors and the important office bearers in the BCCI get affected by the popular mood in the country. They never take decisions that are really good for Indian cricket, although the masses and the fans think otherwise. They are constantly reacting to what the fans and the media are saying. So we don't really make very mature moves in Indian cricket. They are all influenced by the populist mood at that time. IC: Going back to the previous selection panel, I think that Kiran More did have the courage to take some decisions. SM: Correct. IC: Unfortunately, I think he was a bit let down by the younger players, who, when they were given the opportunity, didn't really grab it. But I think he definitely had the strength of character [to take those strong decisions]. Selection, and getting the right selectors, is far more important than the coach. My first priority would be to get the right selection panel, not just at the international level but even at the domestic level, to ensure that the right sort of players are getting filtered through to the top from below. TG: Well, that certainly seems to be one of the problems in India, judging by what Sanjay has to say. One of the arguments that is being put forward is that the big three are all are on the wrong side of 30, yet we've got guys like Adam Gilchrist and Matthew Hayden who are 35, and there is no clamour in the Australian media for their heads. Do the Aussies have the answer in this regard, Sanjay? SM: I do not believe in this age factor too much. I was in Sri Lanka recently and I watched Sanath Jayasuriya, at the age of 38, bat. There was this one instance where he ran three and he was keen to come back for the fourth run, but the debutant who was batting at the other end seemed tired and he refused it and Jayasuriya was furious. So do you put numbers on a Jayasuriya, saying that he's 38 and he's too old? No. I think it's all about adding value to the team. Yes, when you think about the World Cup four years from now, Jayasuriya might not be in the Sri Lankan team, but I think it's important to keep winning the matches that you will be playing in the immediate future. I'm very conscious of the ranking system that we have. Let's not get completely carried away by it, but it is a general reflection of the way the team is performing on a day-to-day basis. India have to keep an eye on that as well. They have never remained at the No. 2 or No. 3 position for any considerable length of time. Just using that as a yardstick, the Indian seniors aren't really contributing much to that. We aren't really playing well as a one-day team; we aren't going anywhere as far as one-day cricket is concerned. So that is my problem as far as the seniors are concerned. If they were making a great impact, if our team had reached the finals of the World Cup or was No. 2 in the rankings, then yes, it becomes a delicate decision whether you phase out the seniors, looking ahead to the World Cup, but there's no denying that the Indian team's performance has been average for far too long. TG: Ian, what about age and fielding, for example? IC: The big difference between the Australian and the Indian team in the situation that you have just mentioned is that Australia is a very good fielding side, whereas India is a very poor one-day fielding side. That, to me, is the greater problem with the big three. It's not their age. I don't care what the age of a guy is; if he can still perform then he's in the team as far as I am concerned. The reason why no one is clamouring for either Gilchrist's or Hayden's head is that, one, they are performing; and two, neither of them is a liability in a very good fielding side. India is such a poor fielding side, and I think that's where this problem is created. TG: It's all very well calling for the blood of some of the older players. But, Sanjay, are there enough players in the domestic scene in India who can step into the shoes of a Sachin, a Rahul or a Sourav? SM: That's one thing that is always being written about: who is there to replace Tendulkar? My answer to that is, no one. But look at India's situation as a team and its results in one-day cricket. Say, four years from now these players are not around; do you think India will hit rock bottom? No, it will still be a pretty decent one-day team and will still be winning matches. We should not think of whether there is anyone to replace Sachin or not. He is just far too good a player to be replaced. But the youngsters who come through, once they are playing with other youngsters and are not overawed by the personalities around them, they will settle down. The feeling I am getting now is that the body language of this team is different from that of the Twenty20 side. When you have such heavyweight personalities in the side, some of the youngsters do get bogged down. That is an Indian trait that we have. When Sunil Gavaskar retired in 1987, people had the same fear: who will replace Gavaskar? Tendulkar came in two years later. Kapil Dev was replaced by Anil Kumble. I have great faith in the waters of India. We will continue to produce good enough cricketers to remain a pretty decent team in international cricket. TG: Ian, Australia have been in a similar sort of a situation where they lost one or two of their big players. Is it the same sort of thing in India? IC: I think the Australian selectors have always been mindful of a situation where they are going to lose probably up to half a dozen really good players around the same time, and I think they have been trying to filter younger players through. If they've not actually picked them in the side, they've tried to get them ready - take them on some tours and get them used to touring with Australia and get them used to the feeling of being part of an Australian side. It's not always the easiest thing to do. Guys like [shane] Warne and [Glenn] McGrath don't give you too many opportunities to drop them because they are too good a player. There's a watershed there. When [Dennis] Lillee, Greg [Chappell] and [Rodney] Marsh all retired and Australia went downhill - not just because of that, there were other factors involved, but partly due to that... and I think that is constantly thrown up as a reminder to all the Australian selectors: Beware. Always be ready and have some new players filtering through and be almost ready to come in because we don't want to have that situation happen again. TG: That's right, because they finished in 1984 and it took Australia until 1987 to win the World Cup. That's a good example of what can happen if a few players go out quickly. One of the interesting things that people are talking about is that the Indian team that played the ICC World Twenty20, did not include the big three, yet they had this incredible victory. Do you think the same would have happened had the big three been there? SM: You know, let's not compare Twenty20 and the 50-over game. Let's not look too much into that performance to have views on our 50-over cricket. But I have no doubt in my mind that if the big three had been there - it's not about the ability so much - their presence would have inhibited the style of the younger players. Sometimes they [the younger players] were clearly over the top in South Africa. I am sure you would not have seen that kind of enthusiasm on the field had the senior players been around. It's part of our Indian culture. When an elderly person walks into the room, then suddenly the youngsters clam up a bit. It's just too ingrained in our culture. The dressing room that we have had over the years - whenever a Kapil Dev or Gavaskar would walk in, there would be a sudden hush. It's not the same in Australia, where I have seen young players take the mickey out of the senior players, and sometimes go after the captain as well. IC: Well, it's [Twenty20] an opportunity to make your name on the international scene and I think the younger players showed that they have something in them, and I think the opportunity should be presented to see if they can show the same thing in both the longer forms of the game. But anybody who is worrying about whether India would have won the Twenty20 competition with the big three there is not thinking about the right thing. You can't do anything about that. India has won the tournament, be happy that they have won it. It's now time to move on and work out how you can start to win some other things. TG: Can I ask you about the process that we are seeing creeping into the game, where players are giving away the one-day game and staying with the Test matches or vice versa? Is that something that you would like to see the big three consider? SM: You know, that is something that I find quite strange. I think Rahul Dravid will start talking about the matter - he will start talking about his eventual retirement, and what are his plans are for the future. Ganguly and Tendulkar have not given any hints as to what their plans are, and that doesn't make life easier for the selectors. Tendulkar, when he was in the West Indies, said that he would like to play in the next World Cup. There are some individuals - I think there have been some in Australia and some in Indian cricket as well - who made the job easier for the selectors by actually saying, "That's it for me, now is the time for me to move on." But there is absolutely nothing said in that direction by either Ganguly or Tendulkar. So it's really up to the selectors and what plans they have for Indian cricket, which would involve these two individuals. TG: Your thoughts on that, Ian? IC: Well, that is one way to go, and I think the big three are better suited to the Test match arena these days. For me, it's really not up to the players. If the selectors are thinking that it's time for all three or any one of them to go, then the service that the three of them have given entitles them to have the question posed. The selectors need to go to them and say, "We think your time is up and out of respect for what you have done for Indian cricket we are going to give you the opportunity to pull the cord yourself. But if you don't pull it, then we will pull it for you." That is the sort of thing that has been done in the recent times in the Australian side, and I do not have any problem with that. I think some players deserve that for the service that they have rendered. For the general run-of-the-mill player it's, "Bad luck, pal, sorry, your name is not on the sheet this week." I think the big players deserve to be given the opportunity. If they don't take it then you need a strong selection panel. I think Dravid will start talking about his eventual retirement and what are his plans are for the future. Ganguly and Tendulkar have not given any hint as to what their plans are, and that doesn't make life easier for the selectors Sanjay Manjrekar SM: One of the problems in India - it's part of our culture again - is that it just comes down to having courage. You need maturity for somebody to sit across the table with the big three or the superstars of the Indian cricket and have a plain, straightforward talk with due respect. You start by saying, "With due respect to you, gentlemen, these are our plans and this is what we intend to do." I don't think there have been more than one or two guys who have had the guts to have this kind of talk with the superstars of Indian cricket. They are too much in awe of them, and sometimes they are actually scared of these big personalities. It may seem a simple enough matter, to sit across the table and discuss the plan for Indian cricket with them and also let them know about the plans the selectors they have for them. But I doubt whether that discussion has taken place with the current selection committee and the big three. It never happens, and it is always handled very poorly, just because of the lack of courage that the selectors have had, and some personalities that Indian cricket has had over the years. TG: Sanjay, what you seem to be suggesting there is that the problem is going to be that you haven't got strong selectors, and therefore, it is going to be up to the players, to decide when to go. SM: This selection committee, until now, hasn't shown too much courage in doing what is right for Indian cricket. After the win in the ICC World Twenty20 and the debacle in the World Cup, nothing has changed in 50-overs cricket in India, which I find a little strange. Even the leadership change was forced on them. It wasn't the selection committee thinking that [Mahendra Singh] Dhoni is the future and we've got to move in that direction. I agree with Ian that Kiran More's selection committee had a lot more courage and had plans for the future. This selection committee, unfortunately, doesn't have that. How can you say, then, that the players have to make it easier? If Tendulkar wants to keep playing, if he is still enjoying the game, or Ganguly wants to play for India, then who are we to say that they can't play? It's up to what the selectors have in mind, what their plans for Indian cricket are, what their vision for Indian cricket is, and then where these guys fit. TG: Can I ask for a quick summary from both of you? If you were the chairman of selectors, how would you go forward with Indian cricket? SM: I have no doubt that there has to be a change in direction at this stage in 50-overs cricket in India. What we saw in the Twenty20 game gave us a little hope, especially with the attitude of the younger generation and the way they played. But things have got to change, for India's 50-overs cricket has stagnated. So seeing all these signs and the fact that we are languishing at No. 4, 5, 7 in the one-day cricket rankings, I think there is a need for change, and the change has got to be in one direction - forward towards youth. But it has to be done in a very mature fashion and not the way it was done with Dravid: dropped for the last one-day game [against Australia], and who knows what his one-day future is. IC: I don't think any of the three are going to make it to the next World Cup. Ganguly, probably, would be the first one I would be looking at [dropping] - his fielding was never up to standard. People are saying that Ganguly and Tendulkar are still the best opening combination, but that is basically because nobody else has really been given the opportunity... SM: Correct. IC: ...over an extended period. So I think the time is right to start phasing them out. The selectors will face a two-fold problem. Firstly, going with what Sanjay has said, with respect to Indian culture, of not being able to sit across the table and talk to them about this. The second problem that will occur - this is what happened during the More time - is you go with the younger players, India loses matches, and then the outcry starts. That's when you need the real courage, to just say that we understand that we have to feel a bit of pain for a little while. This is where you need to look at the mid-80s period in Australian cricket. That, to me, was the difference between Australia and most other cricket nations, including England. They did not go for a band-aid solution. They said, "Right, we have got a problem, our cricket is no good, and we have to fix this. But we have got to be prepared to put up with some pain for a few years." If you look at what we went through the mid-80s... sure, we lost a lot, but then have a look at what Australia has gained at the other end. Once it came good, it has come for a long time. That's the sort of plan that India has to put in place, but it is going to take a lot of courage for the selection panel when they start losing games. Then it will be a matter of whether they jump back to the older guys or have got the courage in their convictions to keep going. What they have got to say to themselves is that at some point these three are going to go anyhow, because age will eventually get the better of them. The selectors may say, "We hope it's not during our time. We'll retire when they retire, so we are away from the problem." When India do start to make changes, and they lose a few games, that's when there will be a clamour, that's when courage will be required TG: Right. Strong, courageous selectors, some good communication, and some understanding from the crowd seems to be the general consensus of opinion. Thank you very much for your time. That's all in this edition of Cricinfo's Round Table. Until next time, it's goodbye ______________________ Interesting discussion about the big 3. I agree with some things that have been said here. I agree that the big 3 arent going to make it to the next world cup and thus should be phased out of the ODI team. I believe it is probably time for Dravid to go, as his form is slipping badly. While I agree with that notion of being inhibited around the seniors, I dont quite agree with the idea that they will be better players without the big 3 there, because youngsters (at the time) have still managed to prosper and play their natural games even with the big 3 there such as Sehwag, Yuvraj, Dhoni, Uthappa (recently). With someone like Gambhir its not like once the big 3 retire his footwork issues will just go away so this idea that we will be a great team within 5 years or so of the big 3 retiring is not quite true i feel. The comparison with Australia is different because of the quality of the Australian domestic system. However I will sum up by saying the times that I feel the big 3 should be phased out in ODIs by these stages ... * Dravid - probably now * Ganguly - after the Australian series * Tendulkar - after the SAF series in India in April next year I believe that dropping them now will place too much pressure on our young players heading into the Australian series and Sachin's good form can not be overlooked when heading into the Australian series (as I have said in other posts). Mid next year means that the ODI team have just under 3 years to get ready for the next world cup What are your thoughts?

[Lurker]

Bharat, To be honest I did not think the discussion brought to fore anything that many of us have not been arguing right here. Here is basically what SM, IC and TG are saying: 1) India's goal should be 2011 WC and there is no room for the Big 3 in that plan. 2) Even with Big 3 India is languishing at 6-7 in ranking so why not give youngsters a chance? 3) Sachin Tendulkar can NOT be replaced, he is too great a player for that. But his time has passed and India should replace him, just as we replaced Kapil Dev or Sunil Gavaskar. 4) The presence of Big 3 inhibits the junior players. The dressing room atmoshphere is very different when Big 3 are there, and when they are not. And it is evident in the result of 20/20. Long story short Big 3 have to go(specially from LOI). xxxx

[siddhu]

I think, what people (especially SM, IC and TG) don't realize is that selectors will not live to see another day if they decide to drop big 3 all of a sudden. Mind you the word is "drop". More and Co faced a lot of music when they just dropped an out-of-form (for quite a few years), slow, lazy Ganguly. Which is why the selectors don't have enough courage to go against the flow. The big three are irreplaceable, that is for sure. and yes there will be a void in Indian cricket after they retire for some time. Having said that, phasing out is necessary. And the first one to go should be Ganguly. He just sorts of gives up after making 50 or so(when and if he gets there). No fitness whatsoever, no fielding or running between the wickets. Plus his lazy attitude does not help either. The sequence I would go for would be Ganguly (maybe a series or two max) Dravid or Sachin (who ever is loosing form, fitness - maybe six months down the road) remaining one (a year down the road) I would like to see them phased out in not more than 2 years. That still gives us another 2 years or so to build for WC-2011.

[Chaos]

wow, how stupid these idiots can be? without sachin there is no chance we would win any games. 1/10 would be my guess without tendulkar. He is in PRIME form. He will RIP paki bowlers.

[fineleg]

^^^ Right, its the *only* chance we have... :hysterical:

[Yuvraj4Captaincy]

wow' date=' how stupid these idiots can be? without sachin there is no chance we would win any games. 1/10 would be my guess without tendulkar. He is in PRIME form. He will RIP paki bowlers.[/quote'] mouni gadhe...talk some sense