Has BCCI Missed a Trick or Two?

Medieval imperialistic instincts may well have been satiated, when Englishmen during an early 21^st century summer gave Indian natives a hiding, to drive the final nail into the coffin of our imagination, over who are the true masters at the sport. One may well be tempted to contemplate that the meek surrender of our cricketing rock stars in ‘battleground England’ must have evoked such sentiments among old chauvinists, who still hark back to the bygone era of the British Empire. After all, isn’t sport war by other means?

Michael Vaughan’s caustic comment on BBC’s Test Match Special clearly tugs at nationalistic underpinnings, to what was traditionally considered a gentlemen’s game. Vaughan said, “It’s a disgrace to think that India were blown away in 29 overs under blue skies on a pitch that was only doing a bit. They should be embarrassed. Some of those strokes were of players who didn’t want to fight for their country.” (Emphasis mine)

Geoffrey Boycott wrote in the Daily Telegraph, “India were pathetic when they had to bat and bowl on two seaming, swinging pitches at Old Trafford and the Oval. Their batsmen lacked application and the technique to handle two of the best Test bowlers in the world in James Anderson and Stuart Broad. On these sort of pitches they are a handful for any batsman and these talented kids had no experience of such conditions. The Indian batsmen were like lambs to the slaughter.

India’s batting effort was definitely “pathetic”, as Boycott has described it. As for lack of “application” and inferior and ineffective “technique”, the old-school copybook technician is perhaps one of the best individuals to sit in judgment over those aspects of the art and science of batsmanship. Two of the “best” Test bowlers, did you say, Mr. Boycott? Anderson, may be, but Broad, well, I for one can’t be that sure, I’m afraid. That cricket has become less gentle and more a man’s game, stood out in England this season, when our boys were treated like “bachchas” on the pitch. Boycott called them “kids” in his article and I don’t suppose his advancing age had anything to do with it.

Talking of lambs being led to the slaughter, well, I wonder how the veggies among our boys would react to that expression. Anyway, the BCCI, in its infinite wisdom, which is beyond what ordinary human minds can fathom, has drawn up its own list of “bali ka bakras”. Duncan Fletcher’s wings have been clipped, with Ravi Shastri appointed the Director of Team India, and the assistant coaches asked to proceed on unsolicited leave. The services of Sanjay Bangar and B. Arun have been enlisted, in what seems to be a sudden nationalistic counter-surge. Even Rahul Dravid has been sounded out as a possible stopgap arrangement, should good old Duncan decide to hang up his boots and cool his heels in his native Zimbabwe.

Talking of “bali ka bakras”, don’t forget the targeting of WAGs (wives and girlfriends) who have also been held responsible for their nuisance value for distracting their touring better (or worse?) halves. In fact, “distraction” was squarely blamed by Jonathan Agnew, writing for the BBC website. He said, “The problem for the tourists was firstly that they allowed themselves to become distracted (emphasis mine) by the Anderson-Jadeja furore and secondly that they simply didn’t have any time for players to regroup and find form between Tests.”

Whatever the validity of Agnew’s statement, he does make an important point that is worth pondering over. It was quite clear that the tour was badly planned. Not much preparation went into it and far too few practice matches punctuated the itinerary. Given that an overwhelming majority of the Indian squad had never played in England before, such shoddy planning was all the more inexcusable. While our selectors sought scapegoats to pin the blame on, for the debacle, their ill-conceived half-measures seem like trying to treat the symptoms without wanting to root out the disease.

How about encouraging young and talented cricketers like Kohli, Pujara and Rahane to play county cricket in England? How about clearing all the logistical and legal hurdles that litter their ambitious paths? The need for budding Indian talent to hone their skills on seaming tracks in swinging conditions was constantly emphasized from the commentary box and newspaper articles. Apparently, none of the wise men belonging to the BCCI seem to have got wind of it, which reflects poorly on them. If the attitude of men who preside over the future of Indian cricket is so full of apathy, then God help us.   

The stinging editorial of The Independent says it all. It said: “The reputation of India’s batsmen has undergone its own mini volte-face as well, with Virat Kohli suffering even more than the rest. He arrived being lauded as the only man who could challenge AB de Villiers for the title of best batsman in all formats of the game, he ends the series with an average of 13.40 and only 22 runs more than James Anderson, who batted five innings less — nobody’s calling him new Tendulkar anymore.” Can we fend off such insinuations any longer?  

After all, the stats never lie, do they? The first Test was a draw. India won the second Test by 95 runs, which seems like a flash in the pan now. In the third Test England won by 266 runs. In the fourth, they beat us by an innings and 54 runs. And, as if that was not enough, they delivered us a massive drubbing in the fifth and final Test when they beat us by an innings and 244 runs. So, the question is, would the BCCI’s reaction and responses to this debacle prove adequate to turn things around for Indian cricket? Well, your guess is as good as mine.