In 2014, when India lost Test series in England (3-1) and Australia (2-0), we figured out the reasons straightaway: the team was under-prepared, our domestic structure was poor, there was too much emphasis on the IPL, young and talented players were not coming through the system quickly enough, the players were swollen-headed and more interested in making money through endorsements, the gap between domestic cricket and international was vast.
Other reasons were quoted too, but these were repeated most often. Anyone who wrote or spoke about India’s defeats trotted out some or all of the above.
Why can’t India be more like Australia, we asked. Why can’t we have a professional system in place like that country? Perhaps we should have fewer first class teams leading to a more competitive national championship.
Roles reversed
Now that Australia have lost a home series against India for the first time, it is interesting to listen to the experts and ex-cricketers there say much the same thing; except where India spoke of the system and the structure and the players in Australia, Australians are saying the same about India; there is a touch of envy.
Shane Warne found fault with Australia’s preparation. Major mistakes have been made, said Ricky Ponting, and two leading writers, Gideon Haigh and Peter Lalor sounded like the leading Indian writers of four years ago!
“India play tons of four-day cricket,” said Haigh, pointing to India’s 37 First Class teams as opposed to Australia’s six.
“You are not handed opportunities in India,” said Lalor suggesting that Australian players didn’t need to fight as hard, and pointing to the difference in the two systems that seemed to favour India. The role of the IPL scouts was praised too — they travelled beyond the traditional areas to find talent.
Suddenly, our domestic structure is strong, the IPL was making a difference by discovering players, and there was no talk of endorsements or swollen-headedness.
Some years ago Greg Chappell had said that when India finally got their act together, they would be unbeatable, perhaps even capable of fielding three international teams of near-equal strength.
In four years since the last tour, India have been — despite the shenanigans in the Board of Control for Cricket in India — preparing for just this result. Even before the 2014 setbacks, the BCCI had instructed curators across the country to retain a minimum grass cover on the pitches. Between four and five millimetres, sometimes up to eight on hard surfaces.
We fail to see cause and effect if the intervening period is long. The deliberate change in the kind of pitches prepared had the twin effect of encouraging fast bowlers as well as developing a generation of batsmen who played fast bowling better than most.
Pacers better than spinners
In the last five Ranji seasons, pace bowlers have had better averages than spinners and, barring one year, better strike rates too. This is a telling statistic; the Bumrahs and Shamis didn’t emerge from thin air.
Perhaps there are only so many reasons for a team’s failure. The least complicated is the acknowledgement that the opposition is vastly superior, as the Windies of the 70s and 80s were or the Australians of more recent years.
Sometimes the reasons have stretched from the presence of wives and children on tour (occasionally brought up by the losing Ashes team) to poor umpiring (this, in the days before neutral umpires and the DRS).
When England lost all the Tests in India in 1992-93, skipper Graham Gooch had some original reasons: the pollution in Kolkata, the prawns in Chennai and the facial hair of the England players. You took your pick.
Yet, in real terms, there can be only a handful of reasons, and we recycle them. Injury to a leading player or two (or their absence for other reasons) can be added to the list. Fatigue too. Players are human after all. Lack of inspiration that leads to a flat performance. Poor selection. And not too many more.
India are done with red ball cricket for a while now, and the focus is on the World Cup which is less than four months away.
The white ball tournaments in New Zealand and at home against Australia no matter how they end will still place India as one of two favourites — England being the other — to win the trophy.
The Indian team looks more or less settled (which is an advantage of winning series especially abroad), with only the combinations to be worked out from among a bunch of perhaps 17 or 18 players. There is overchoice, and that is a pleasant problem. The Dhoni question seems to be settled for the moment.
I am not sure who first said that cricket is a funny game. Whoever it was would feel vindicated afresh if he were to read the reactions following Australia’s defeat. Haigh and Warne and the others are right, of course, just as Indian critics were four years ago.
