Desicritics Author: Nanda Kishore

The Politicisation of Indian Cricket - Corridors of Chaos

Nanda Kishore — Mon, 7 Aug 2006 09:57:47 EDT

The politicisation of Indian cricket is hardly news these days, but one can safely say it has reached new a high (or low) with the usually pragmatic Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee jumping into the cesspool. We have already had worthy gentlemen like Sharad Pawar, Manohar Joshi, Kirti Azad (admittedly an ex-cricketer) and of course, Laloo Yadav himself doing the rounds of the corridors of power in the one game that matters to India. Dalmiya, some would say, is one of the biggest and baddest of them all. Where is the game heading?

It was alright for the odd politician like the late Madhav Rao Scindia to be involved with the game, even if it set somewhat of a precedent. At least he seemed to have his heart in the right place as far as the game was concerned. The same couldn't be said of some of the others who have increasingly been threatening to make their presence felt one way or the other. It's not just about hobnobbing with celebrities and the gadflies that they attract any more - it is of course common knowledge that there is a lot of money involved now. The money-power equation then makes it inevitable, given the dynamics of our politics, that sooner or later most of the institutions would be run by those who seek power and pelf.

To bemoan this state of affairs is natural, but it would be naive to think it was all hunky dory before. At the state and lower levels, the game has always been 'looked after' by despicable characters whose sole credentials were political or other powerful connections. Monumental neglect of the domestic game by everyone concerned, the public included, served well to hide the skeletons in seeming wastelands like the Orissa Cricket Association (whose current honcho I believe is Ranjib Biswal, a fine cricketer in his day, but more importantly with strong political connections). Selectorial indiscretions, including allegations of bribery and favouritism, may be sensational material for increasingly avaricious media outlets, but these are passe at the grassroots levels. As for financial management, one can only imagine the goings on.

With mediocre performances from the national side, one wonders if there is anything to be optimistic about. Sure, there are some fine individual performers around, and the skipper himself is a giant of the game. But in a time of ever more inane controversies and power struggles, the game itself has been somewhat marginalised. But as long as there is enough material for Navjot Sidhu to rant about on the Cricket Controversies show, who cares? The crazy sardar is entertaining, after all. And it's all about entertainment, innit?

PS: One final word on the Dalmiya episode - I agree with Jyoti Basu when says Bhattacharjee shouldn't have interfered with the CAB elections, but I do feel queasy about anyone who the venerable Mr.Basu (not to mention Subhash Chakraborty) endorses. The whole thing smacks of irony, I say.

World Cup 2006: Spain Was Irresistible

Nanda Kishore — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:17:46 EDT

I cannot recall a team beginning on such a note in recent World Cups as Spain did against Ukraine last night. They basically killed Ukraine, even if the final nail was hammered by the Swiss referee when he handed out a red card in addition to a penalty for what was a routine challenge. There was not much evidence to suggest that Ukraine might have fared better without the setback, but all the fight left in them was snuffed. The only time Spain looked anything like threatened was when Andriy Shevchenko almost managed to beat the offside trap on a couple of occasions. I did think the assistant referee may have got it wrong on at least one occasion.

The minor quibbles about refereeing aside, Spain just completely dominated the game and reduced a competent Ukraine side to tatters. This was without a doubt the most emphatic performance of the World Cup so far. Which got everyone asking the same old question: are Spain finally ready to put on a show at the biggest stage? They were cruelly eliminated on penalties the last time round, and the refereeing in that quarterfinal against the South Koreans was abysmal as Fernando Morientes was denied a winner.

There is no Morientes in this side, and it has a youthful look, particularly the attacking part. Some of the defensive stalwarts have also bowed out of the international scene, and it was a strange feeling to not find Fernando Hierro in the back four. The talismanic figure of Raul Gonzalez was on the bench when the game got underway, but the David Villa and Fernando Torres took the opportunity to strut their own impressive talents. Torres was in blazing form and set the tone early on, and the creative engine of Xabi Alonso and Xavi were linking beautifully with Torres, Villa and Garcia. It was a surprise to see the first three goals come from dead ball situations but the issue was finally settled by Torres' magnificent strike following some delightful passing.

Spain have promised a lot before and not delivered. Perhaps most famously in 1998, when they fell in the first around when they were in the group of death. I also remember their loss to Belgium in '86 after they trashed an impressive Danish side, with 'El Buitre' Butragueno scoring four. This time, the draw has been extremely kind to them and they should reach the second round with plenty of gas left in the tank. Along with the Czech, Italians and Argentineans, they are a team to watch (Brazil tops that list by default).

England, Argentina Unconvincing

Nanda Kishore — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 07:10:02 EDT

By some coincidence, I managed to miss the opening World Cup game from 1990 thru 2002. I had to settle for witnessing the shock that Senegal handed France on a computer monitor in a Chennai cybercafe and I thought I'll do better this time. As it turned out, I was blissfully unaware of the exact date of the opening game and couldn't even catch the highlights of the Germany-Costa Rica game except for some grainy footage on the official FIFA site.

That made it all the more imperative that I watched England and Argentina's opening games, even if the timings here in Melbourne are absolutely brutal. But that is an occupational hazard for a sports fan. In the event, only the Argentina-Ivory Coast game made it really worth my while, but the England game brought home the World Cup atmosphere for me. The Sweden - Trinidad and Tobago game was a blur between fitful naps, sandwiched as it was between the two games I really wanted to watch.

England's display will have their manager and the legion of supporters (there are quite a few of them Down Under) worried no end. They did control proceedings for most of the game, particularly in the first half when the Paraguay defense was in shambles. But the fact that England got their winner from an own goal (cruelly, it had to be the experienced Gamarra) tells quite a bit of the story. Cole, Lampard and Beckham all had their moments of brilliance, but no one quite took charge of proceedings. John Terry was solid in central defence, but the recently rehabilitated Ashley Cole looked a touch slow and shaky. England did not create enough in the second half and looked content to be cruising against a below par Paraguay, but it could have so easily been a point shared had Nelson Valdez finished better early in the second half.

Argentina fared better in making their intentions clear against the African Nations cup finalists, but they had perhaps not contended with such a stiff challenge. Ivory Coast may have lost and may bow out early (and that would be a shame), but their abundant talents were on display. A large part of the first timers' contingent are established European pros and so they are not the usual minnows. Apart from Didier Drogba and Kolo Toure who are virtual household names, Bonaventura Kalou and the diminutive Boka impressed a great deal. They did everything but score, and had Argentina scoring twice against the run of play, the first one an opportunistic strike from the predatory Crespo and the second one a brilliant through ball from Juan Riquelme that produced the silkiest of finishes from little Saviola. In the end Drogba's goal came too late to inject much needed confidence and the Argentineans were too determined to let slip three points in what has been termed the customary Group of Death.

Argentina would be relieved no end considering their shock exit from a similarly ruthless group in the last edition. They seem to have a similar embarrassment of riches to Brazil, and the fact that Lionel Messi was just cooling his heels on the bench would be an unnerving thought for any opposition, but they need to much tighter in defence if they are to progress far. Ivory Coast managed to rip apart their defence on quite a few occasions and Pekerman should be concerned. As for Sven-Goran Eriksson, he has the world to worry about!

White Wash In The West Indies: Time For Tune-Up?

Nanda Kishore — Tue, 30 May 2006 10:39:28 EDT

I could be accused of being wise in hindsight here, but let me say honestly that I expected India to struggle in the West Indies. Don't ask me why, but I just had a gut feeling that the team was not going to live up to expectations or rankings. Something about the side doesn't seem right. I'm being very vague here, but that sums up how I felt at the onset of the one-day series. Of course I did not expect them to be hammered 4-1. On the contrary, I expected to limp to a 3-2 win or something similar. That India finished on the wrong end of a couple of close games pretty much sealed the deal for Brian Lara's side.

In the aftermath of the stunning world cup triumph in 1983, many analysts pointed to the win over the mighty West Indies led by Clive Lloyd at Berbice, where Sunny Gavaskar and Kapil Dev two of their best innings. In fact, some of the players involved themselves pointed at that game as being a real confidence booster. India were thumped overall, but given their dismal one-day record thus far, it was a seminal moment. The next world cup is still quite some time away, so this may not be as critical to the team's fortunes, but it seems ominous somehow and brings soaring expectations crashing down to earth. I didn't expect miracles here, but the win in Pakistan was quite creditable, especially the manner in which the wins were secured, often reducing the Pakistanis to despair. This after the disastrous Karachi test. It's now back to square one.

It's funny how the tables can turn so quickly. The same worthies who were hyping up the Chappell-Dravid 'combo' are now singing a different. The reality is that both our batting and bowling look fragile and the bowling has looked fragile for quite some time now. Some magnificent batting performances helped paper over those cracks, and now that the batsmen didn't do the job, the team struggled mightily against a West Indies side that is easily the worst among the test nations barring the real minnows. No doubt there will be a lot said about how well the West Indians played, and I do think they have some great talent in Gayle, Sarwan and Bravo, but to me it is still a pathetic side that was roundly trashed by one and all in its own backyard. That we could win only one out of five is nothing short of catastrophic.

Sachin Tendulkar still remains the one player who can single handedly win a game and can also instill real fear into the opposition. Virender Sehwag did play a couple of substantial innings, but the fact is that was a pleasant surprise considering his wishy-washy form in one-day cricket in recent times. With Sourav Ganguly having waned as a batsman and now hounded out of reckoning (why should he be made a pariah?), we seem to have a real problem of lack of solidity. The one silver lining, if that phrase can indeed be employed in the context of such a pathetic performance, was the bowling of Ajit Agarkar. I have had some uncharitable things to say about the Mumbai bowler, not entirely without justification, but he has redeemed himself in recent one-day series and bowled superbly right through the Sri Lanka and South Africa series. He harassed the out of form Sanath Jayasuriya no end, which is more than can be said of any Indian bowler with the exception of Javagal Srinath.

The experiment with Rahul Dravid at the top of the order, in my opinion, is a hopeless gamble. Unlike other converted openers, Dravid is neither a natural striker nor one who can rotate the strike fluently regardless of the state of the game or the nature of the surface and can get bogged down every now and then. That he has emerged in recent times as one of the premier one-day batsmen in the world is a testament to his determination and skill, but to expect him to perform this role is going one step too far. He may yet prove us wrong, but I will be surprised if that experiment is not jettisoned before the world cup.

One other question. If VVS Laxman was found to be out of tune with the requirements of the contemporary one-day game, especially given his proclivity for trouble with running between the stumps, how does the rotund Romesh Powar get into the scheme of things? Cricinfo even had an article romanticising his portly built, suggesting he was one of the last amateurs. What utter nonsense!

Sports Heroes And Villains: Return of the Prodigals

Nanda Kishore — Sun, 21 May 2006 01:12:44 EDT

That Andrew Flintoff and Kevin Pietersen have had a large part to play in England's resurgence as a cricket force is stating the obvious. They have brought not only their array of skills, especially the supremely gifted Flintoff, to the cricket field, but also enlivened proceedings with their energy, enthusiasm and a seeming love of life.

Other contemporary cricketers of whom the same could be said, apart from the incorrigible Shane Warne, are probably Andrew Symonds, Brett Lee, Yuvraj Singh and perhaps Mahendra Singh Dhoni. One might have been tempted to add Andre Nel to that list only if he weren't so infuriatingly irritating with his childish antics.

The Flintoff-Pietersen/Warne-Lee confrontations in the Ashes were some of the best contests cricket fans have seen for a while - intense and skillful with no quarter conceded to the other. To top it all, the battles were fought in the best of spirits, something that cannot be taken for granted, to be savoured while they last.

To be sure, apart from Warne - and Pietersen to a lesser extent - none of those gentlemen are larger than life in the Richards/Botham mould. Legend has it that the great all-rounder once broke a bed while making love to a mistress on a tour of the Caribbean. King Richards admitted fathering a child with an Indian actress, apparently another of his dalliances.

Those stories seem somewhat jarring in today's context of professional cricketers and cricket boards that would love to have their cricketers be well behaved dogs. Not that uncouth on-field sledging is ever desirable - despite many protestations from the Aussies, one fails to see how it does not sully the game. As Sunny Gavaskar has pointed out repeatedly, banter is okay, sledging not.

A typical example would be that legendary banter between Rod Marsh and Ian Botham, who was queried by the Aussie keeper "How's your wife and my kids?". I am yet to find anyone who has taken offence at that joke. Of course, diverse cultural contexts mean that the manner of banter has to stay within acceptable boundaries - not those of the larger society, but of the sporting subculture.

That brings up the question of what should be considered acceptable. Do we like our sporting icons to be Zen Masters a la Sachin Tendulkar or Pete Sampras or Michael Schumacher? Apart from Tendulkar, none of the other two have touched the hearts of the public in the same way that say an Agassi, McEnroe, Botham, Becker or Maradona has.

We need the full milieu of characters - the good mama's boy in the Rahul David mould, uttering all the right things into the microphone even when it sounds somewhat like a corporate press release and the seemingly arrogant Shane Warne when he says John Bracewell "has no idea".

History is witness to the fact that much like matinee idols, we like our sporting icons the most when they display even a trace of vulnerability, basically showing their humane side. Which is probably why towards the end of his illustrious career, people did warm up to Sampras and offered him the respect that he so justly deserved. Ivan Lendl, on the other hand, was never taken to heart. It is, of course, a personal choice for athletes - who in the end are entertainers if nothing else - as to whether they should wear their hearts on their sleeves or retreat into a zone that enables them to solely concentrate on 'the job'. But Lendl never did try.

In the current context of intense media scrutiny and seemingly puritanical (needless to say hypocritical) attitudes as to how athletes should conduct their life, is there any room for maneuver for larger than life characters? The way Shane Warne has been hounded and called sundry derogatory things is a pointer to such attitudes.

What business is it of ours to find out who he indulged in debauchery with, or even if he did indulge? The easy thing to do is to dismiss it all and say there is a price to be paid in public life, in fact I have held that view myself. But it looks as if the rest of the world is the one that is the voyeur. Another example was when people went so far as to say Andrew Symonds did not have any national pride when he had a night out and broke the team curfew. He transgressed, and was punished in cricketing terms. Should have been the end of the story.

Closer home, there have been the odd slanderous stories about Azharuddin (pre match fixing) and Ganguly involving their love life, but thankfully the media did not go too far.

But who needs a hounding media when an omnipotent cricket board lays down rules that dictate every single aspect of a cricketer's career? Thankfully, they have desisted from moral preaching thus far. One can only hope they stay that way, or else we may as well have a game with androids.

Being a Sports Fan Beyond Boundaries

Nanda Kishore — Sat, 13 May 2006 06:37:58 EDT

Reading Fever Pitch has been one of the better experiences I have had. Anyone who's read the book knows it is not your average sports book. It captures the entire life of Nick Hornby with football, Arsenal just being the perfectly weird backdrop. In the end, however, I had to ask myself if I could ever be an obsessed fan of a team or a club the same way Hornby was before he found enlightenment, as many sports fans are today (I'm not sure if it was ever different). Why would I hate Manchester United or Liverpool (them scouses!) forever? Surely, it is the football that matters?

I guess one of the defining characters of sport are the fans. To an extent, sport would lose some of the passion, the 'human angle' if people were just satisfied with a peach of a goal, a la Maradona, even when it hurts their team. But then, years later, who remembers Terry Butcher or Ray Wilkins? What we all remember is the Hand of God and the feet of Maradona. So in essence, that is what it was all about, all along. Which brings us to why we love sport, any sport, in the first place.

Personally, I love cricket because it reminds me of some of the better moments in my life, both as a player (at whatever level) and as an observer. Without a doubt, the first of the two is the dominant factor. The smell of the leather, the winter mornings in India with the dew still fresh, the feel of grass, the sweet touch of a well oiled bat (in the good old days), a beefy clout, the ball lodging nicely in the palms at slip or the rattle of the stumps, sometimes even when I was the victim.

That's what it's all about, for me.

Growing up, I never wanted the West Indies to lose, even when they were playing India. The brand of cricket the West Indians played was pure nirvana, and in my judgement, they deserved to win it for that reason alone. Never mind that most of the time there was never a predicament. That is also why my idol was Kapil Dev, who at the best of times was not a calculating individual. In a way, I tried to find bits of myself in the players and the cricket they played, which is why I could never bring myself to admire Graham Gooch or Kepler Wessels, for instance.

Why then, do I wonder, are people obsessed with 'their' team? When I lived in Manchester at the turn of the century, I hated the club and was generally thrilled when they lost, which was a moment to savour considering they hardly ever did. But I like the club now, and admire their achievements over the years. I am not particularly enamoured of their style, and I may never like them as much as I love Brazil. But that's how it is; your love or lack of it for a team should be a consequence of the way they play the sport, rather than just parochial considerations. It also means that my support for the Indian cricket team is not a granted thing - they have to play particularly well to win it (the thing is, you win most of the time if you play with a certain skill level). May be the good baron Pierre de Coubertin saw it through all. The olympic ideal is the one to imbibe.

PS: A warning: please disregard user reviews of Fever Pitch on Amazon. The reviewers are likely to be American, and not keen on subtleties.

Kobe Bryant: Can the Brother Get Some Love?

Nanda Kishore — Mon, 8 May 2006 00:07:30 EDT

We all know the old Indian fable about something becoming the truth by repeated assertion. This phenomenon seems to have manifested itself subtly in the NBA, where regardless of whatever he does, Kobe Bryant remains a grudgingly admired superstar. Someone with skills that even the most elite of players in the league can only envy, and have to acknowledge that they're just a gift that only he has, among his contemporaries at least.

Living in Melbourne and not being hooked up to cable television has meant that I have had only very fleeting glimpses of NBA action this season, but have managed to be somewhat tuned in. And the one thing that has stood out for me is Bryant's performance. To be fair, I wasn't exactly enamoured of Bryant in the whole Shaquille O'Neal-Phil Jackson drama following their humiliation against Detroit in the 2004 final, not to mention the ugly sexual assault scandal. In hindsight, it seems the media and public at large were happy to see their image of Bryant as an arrogant, self-centred brat reinforced and he was swiftly and unfairly judged. In the end, it turned out to be one of those encounters gone wrong, possibly one of many such episodes in contemporary American society. In fact, I was somewhat gleeful at the Lakers' plight last season and rejoiced when Miami clinched that unforgettable game on Christman eve (or was it on Christmas Day?). I knew all along, however, that Bryant was a special player, regardless of whatever he was as a person, which frankly is irrelevant unless it has a direct bearing on the sport or fans.

But just like Shane Warne, his supposed character flaws will possibly haunt him till the very end of his career. Or at least that is how I read it. And then there is this whole idea of being a team man, which is quite often taken to ridiculous extents in American sport. So what better way to nail Bryant than to expose him as a selfish, ball-hungry guard who only cares about his PPG? Never mind that the PPG is a small matter of 35, and that without Bryant, the Lakers would have disappeared without a trace this season. Given the compelling arguments, there is another trick that comes in handy for pundits - prop up someone else, especially if someone as good as Lamar Odom is around, someone who's happy to be the number two and is apparently not obsessed with stardom. Now eulogise his contributions, if only to make a little dent in Bryant's own. Combine all that with a mediocre team record, and Bryant is well and truly out of the MVP race. I have the utmost admiration for Steve Nash and he was well and truly the MVP last season, and definitely a contender this season, but why does Bryant get sidelined so ruthlessly (to be honest, my vote is for Nowitzki)? One just has to read between the lines. It's all one big organised circus, the NBA.

The Too Much Cricket Issue: Getting a Grip

Nanda Kishore — Sun, 7 May 2006 13:25:27 EDT

It's unusually cold for this time of the year in Melbourne tonight, and somehow I was reminded of India's loss to New Zealand in the 1992 World Cup. That game was played in the southern most cricket ground in the world, the Carisbrook Park in Dunedin, and was a miserably cold day. Compounding matters was the dismal Indian top order throughout the tournament, but it was when we bowled that the situation became somewhat farcical. Both Kapil Dev and Manoj Prabhakar, who were splendid throughout the Australian tour and the World Cup itself, struggled to hold the ball firmly and get a grip, such was the cold. The ball was wiped every now and then, and saw dust was used, I think, to help matters (I have a vague remembrance of the game). Kapil and Prabhakar both went for runs, and if it wasn't for Javagal Srinath's heartening performance, it would have been a humiliation instead of a simple rout.

It hammered home, for the first time, how conditions overseas could affect our team. One had got used to visitors to the subcontinent complaining of the heat, among other things, and how it was sometime the one factor that decided the fate of the game. Thanks to the organisation/structure of the global media establishment, and our English connections, we always got that perspective drilled into our minds. It was only much later when Sunny Gavaskar, bless his polemic soul, attempted to educate the cricketing public in India on the matter through his columns, that I could relate to the Dunedin game fully.

Gavaskar has often written about the unsatisfactory accommodation and hospitality that could at best be described as lukewarm on tours of England, to the point where he seems to have been stuck in the past. It is nevertheless important to understand that context to appreciate his recent comments regarding complaints about the amount of cricket from the cricketing as well as media circles. In conditions that render that much abused term, acclimatisation, meaningless, the one thing that motivates a player is pride - personal and national. Needless to say, Gavaskar had oodles of both - perhaps to a fault on the first count - and the results have been recorded for posterity.

It is common knowledge, and common sense, that there is too much and needless cricket at the moment and that has to change. But it is important to realise where Gavaskar (or Javed Miandad, for that matter) is coming from, before making any snide remarks about the past masters being romantics of a bygone era.

By the way, I have never understood why anyone would want to play a 2-match or a 4-match series. The cricket board of India and Pakistan, of course, are better equipped to handle the question in their infinite wisdom, but it sure beats me. I'm sure it hasn't escaped anyone that India plays a disproportionate number of series with an even number of games.

Flannelled Belle

Nanda Kishore — Tue, 2 May 2006 01:21:49 EDT

May be it's just one of those nights where I'm a little in touch with my feminine side (not quite the David Beckham way, it must be said though), I write this as I listen to the softer sound of Simon and Garfunkel. Jenny Thompson's interview with Clare Connor, the Ashes winning captain of the English women's side, may have had something to do with it.

Connor's retirement is no waltz into the sunset, just a silent trip to (relatively at least) oblivion, which says a lot about the state of the women's game. Now, that is a sad state of affairs. Not because she or her teammates couldn't make pots of cash and bag fat contracts with Nike. It's sad because I would love to see women playing cricket at the highest level, with the same levels of intensity as in the men's game. I imagine it would be a much more relaxed affair, where opponents would be less interested in questioning the parentage of the batsman on strike, instead concentrating on skill and subtlety.

That of course, is a simplistic and romantic view of things (how could I be anything else when thinking about women?). Bitter rivalries in women's tennis are an old story, and when Australia and New Zealand play each other in netball, the claws are literally out (it helps to have them perfectly manicured). But I would also like to see women's cricket prosper for another reason - at the outset at least, it would be undiluted competition, unfettered by obsessive hero worshipping, TV timings or other such distractions. Alas, that again is another romantic thought. As I mentioned earlier, there is something about this night.

Of course, more than anything else, it would be so cool to have a wife/girlfriend/date who loves cricket/sport. On my list of desirable attributes for a partner, that may just top the guitar goddess. All of which makes women like Clare Connor, Jenny Thompson, Sue Mott, Misha Grewal (former Indian squash champion who incidentally is easy on the eye) pretty hot in my mind.

Chappell Should Get the Benefit of Doubt

Nanda Kishore — Tue, 4 Apr 2006 10:06:08 EDT

I recently read (in The Pioneer, via India Uncut), with mild amusement, opposing viewpoints as to whether Greg Chappell should continue to be the coach of the Indian team. Without going into the details of the two sides of the argument, let me just say that it is quite preposterous to reconsider Chappell's appointment at this stage. More than anything, the debate is a consequence of our national obsession with the game and the media's consequent eagerness to feed the perpetual motion machine. In which case, it should be taken with a lump of salt, or better still, not taken seriously at all.

It did set me thinking, particularly in the backdrop of the shameful capitulation at Wankhede, as to how Chappell has done in his short stint so far. One thing is for sure, he seems to chase controversy as if it were Aishwarya Rai. He has shown remarkable apetite for polemics, even as his stated objective is the betterment of the team. Has his performance matched up?

One would think not, in view of the surrenders - Wankhede following on the heels of Karachi. The upshot is of course the performance in the one-day version, where thumping wins against Sri Lanka and Pakistan came on either side of an uneven performance against South Africa at home. The team is on the verge of wrapping up the series against England, and the money is on the Indian side to take the series handily (there, I jinxed them).

It's not all hunky dory, though, and the wins tend to cover up a few frailties. The bowling is still just above average, not really anywhere near menacing even with Munaf Patel in the side. But the worrying factor is the batting. Some of the experimentation has paid off and the emergence of Mahendra Dhoni and Suresh Raina has certainly added a dimension. On occasion, though, the mixing and matching has been taken to somewhat ridiculous levels. One hopes Rahul Dravid opening the batting was not a long term consideration. The poor form and shot selection of Virender Sehwag has no doubt caused a few headaches. The judgement on improvement in fielding levels should be reserved for the moment, especially in view of the atrocious catching in the tests against England.

It would be somewhat naive to credit Chappell for the one-day performances and lampoon the team for the test debacles, as some in the media have tended to do (a reversal of the 'Players win, coaches lose' logic). On the whole though, slowly but surely, the rebuilding process seems to be leading to a tangible outcome, from a one-day perspective. Nothing much has changed on the test match front, and in fact, the team seems weaker than ever in the last four or so years. More than two years after the triumphant Pakistan tour, sadly we are still contemplating if we are good enough to be second best.

Personally, I preferred the John Wright school of coaching where man-management seemed to be a big part of his approach. That doesn't mean hard taskmasters who are not afraid to take on egos cannot succeed. Alex Ferguson, for instance. At this stage, however, it's not quite clear what will become of the side under Chappell.