Indian ODI Team - Faults and Possible Solutions

[BSharma]

A Piece of My Mind – Part I
(Rambling essay of a member gone insane  )

The cricket pundits have given their verdicts after the Indian team failed to make the semifinal stage of the Challenger Trophy on home soil.  How could a team that finished second at the 2003 World Cup and one that had done so well in 2004 and 2005 with basically the same set of players from the last World Cup turn from champs to chumps? 

Chappel became the biggest villain for the debacle; the selectors at BCCI received some blame, and the loss of form of the players was blamed on, you guessed it right, NOT on the players.  The term “experimentation” became the buzz word in the media, and lack of a fixed batting order was given as another reason for the dismal performance.  Not having senior players such as VVS Laxman and Anil Kumble on the current ODI team was given as proof of the wrong doings of the selectors and Chappel. 

Doc “Check your facts” Sharma  cried himself hoarse in vain and finally gave up, but now urges people to look at the facts in a calm and unbiased manner. 

Lack of fixed batting order:
Chappel and Dravid have been accused of not letting the batsmen get comfortable at any one batting position.  Wright and Ganguly, on the other hand, were supposedly different.  Let’s check the facts.  Some people would want us to believe that a batting line-up should be set in stone when a team arrives at the World Cup tournament.  How fixed was the Indian team line-up for openers and middle-order batsmen in South Africa in 2003?  India used 3 different openers and played 3 different batsmen at #3 batting position, 5 at #4 slot, 2 at #5 in the line-up and 3 at the #6 position.  Mongia batted at #3, #4 and #7, Dravid came at #4, #5 and #6, Kaif at #4, #6 and #7, and Yuvraj at #4, #5 and #6 and these batsmen performed well. 

Teams that keep a fixed batting line-up do so because all of their batsmen can perform well under changing situation of the game, or the team managements have a fixed narrow view.  Australia is perhaps an example of the former, and I am glad that Ganguly and Wright made the necessary changes in the batting line-up to suit the Indian team’s needs for each match in 2003.

For the record, at the Champions Trophy in 2006, India kept the same batting line-up up to the #8 position for the first two matches and then made some changes in the third match.

Selection of Laxman and Anil Kumble:
Much has been written why Kumble was not included in the team for the Champions Trophy.  How well was he treated in South Africa in 2003?  He played in the first two matches, got 4 wickets in the first match and took the only wicket that fell in the second match against Australia, and then cooled his heels in the pavilion for the rest of the tournament.  Laxman was not part of the team that went to the 2003 World Cup.  Would India have won the World Cup if these two players were on the team?  No.  I am not going to second guess Ganguly and Wright for not playing these two players because, I have assumed, that they made decisions which they felt were necessary and correct. 

The problem with the current team is that there is no other batsman besides Tendulkar, Sehwag and Dravid who can open or play the #3 slot on a bouncy pitch against genuine pace attack in ODIs.  It is a crying shame that India is unable to produce good reliable opening batsmen for ODIs nowadays despite the proliferation of “cricket schools”.

(To be continued... please bear with me  )

[BSharma]

A Piece of My Mind – Part II
(The insanity gets worse  )

Problems Facing the ODI Team:

Lack of form of the players:

Chappel’s method of running the team has been hinted by some people as a reason for the lack of form of players.  It appears that the players are not sure if they are in or out of the team.  I could imagine this line of reasoning if a few players affected by this “aaya Ram, gaya Ram” strategy had lost form, but Sehwag, Dravid, Yuvraj, Pathan and Dhoni have not been dropped from the team and all of them have given sub par performances.  Could the real reasons be that they are not as good a player once they leave the shores of the sub-continent, or they are playing too many matches and are mentally/physically tired, or success has gone to their heads, or they are not applying themselves properly during practice sessions?

Lack of determination to excel in the players:

Something is wrong with the team when the coach has to publicly admonish some of the players for their laid-back attitude during practice sessions before the Champions Trophy.  There are reports that the Indian players spent more time celebrating Diwali and Eid and less time on the practice fields and gyms while Australian and other team players spent time honing their skills.  Were our players over confident of winning the championship, or did they lack the determination required to excel?

Improper “performance-linked pay” for the players:

There is little incentive for Indian players to improve once they have reached the group that gets the highest salary from BCCI.  There is no “stick or carrot” approach for payment of salary.  The professional leagues in soccer, basketball, ice-hockey, baseball, motor racing and American football in Europe and North America use performance-linked salaries for the players and this strategy works well for them. 

Lack of decent pace attack:

The Indian pace attack is mediocre at best.  Not only is the ball velocity slower than of comparative bowlers from other top teams, most of our bowlers appear to have a mental block on the field and bowl unintelligently.  An occasional pace bowler shows enthusiasm on the field; most of them lack the fitness to operate effectively over several matches, and many are so fragile that they fall apart after playing continuously for a few months. 

ODIs are a different ball game from Test Matches:

The ODIs require that all players have good skills in at least two phases of the game – batting, bowling and fielding.  It means that all of them must be decent fielders.  A player who misfields often or drops a catch may end up with negative impact on the ODI game. The bowlers get demoralized and the batsmen have to score those extra runs to win the match.  Why are some of our good “Test” batsmen and bowlers not up to the task in fielding?  When they are left out of the ODI team, there is a hue and cry in the country, yet the fans do not demand that these players spend time practicing the necessary fielding skill.  Fielding the ball except for in specialist positions (slip, cover, etc) is an acquired skill and can be improved with practice. 

The baseball players practice running the bases under simulated conditions and they rarely make mistakes in the match.  Our cricketers tend to make more mistakes in running between the wickets than is expected of top class players.

It is time to keep stats on fielding errors and mistakes/near mistakes in running between the wickets and publish them prominently with the scorecard.  If you look at the box scores of every baseball match from Little League to World Series, fielding error is reported right next to “hits” and “runs scored”.

Poor physical fitness:

The fitness of the Indian cricketers has improved over the years, but it remains less than desired for a team that wants to win the World Cup.  BCCI has provided the team with better facilities and staff to improve the fitness than is available to Indian players in any other team sport, yet Sehwag and some players need to shed a lot of fat, our pace bowlers must become stronger, and most players should get swifter. 

Improper selection of the team:

This has been a problem with the Indian team for decades; however, usually about eight or nine players out of eleven are acceptable to most cricket experts.  Many of these so-called experts and commentators have their own biases and if asked to name the “playing eleven” will find dissent from other experts.  Will an Indian team made up of the current best eleven players beat the Australian team in 2007 World Cup?  I am not going to hold my breath for it.

Chappel-Dravid-Ganguly-BCCI soap opera:

When new head coaches are hired by professional sports teams in Europe and North America, the media and the fans give them room, time and discretionary power to modify the team with the understanding that they will make the team better.  Coaches have their own ways of molding their team and occasionally older star players are replaced with younger talented ones.  The Chappel-Dravid-Ganguly-BCCI soap opera started from day one.  The cricket fans in Kolkata took to the streets to express their displeasure before Chappel had time to settle down.  I am not condoning Chappel for the Chappel-Ganguly fiasco and in the manner he got rid of Ganguly, but a head coach has a right to select his team.  Unfortunately, BCCI selectors choose the players with some input from the coach and captain.  Ganguly fans will not be happy until he is back in the team, whether he deserves a place or not is another matter of discussion, and Chappel will be branded a loser until he can win the World Cup in 2007.  The second guessing of Chappel started from day one and this soap opera is ultimately a distraction to the team. 

Lack of leadership:

Ganguly brought skilled leadership into Indian cricket and for that reason alone, I consider him to be the best Indian cricket captain.  Dravid’s style is different from Ganguly’s, but he has not yet shown top-notch leadership skills.  A captain must show leadership on and off the field and that is what makes the role of a cricket captain so unique in sports. 

[BSharma]

A Piece of My Mind – Part III
(Get a shrink quickly; doc has gone insane  )

Proposed Solutions for the Indian ODI team:

The solutions are to correct the flaws, weaknesses and deficiencies of the team and build on the strengths.  Give Chappel and Dravid some leeway; institute performance-linked payments; bring discipline on the practice fields and in matches so that the players excel in all phases of the game; develop a couple of extra batsmen who can play effectively at #1, #2, or #3 spot in the batting line-up; require that proper fitness regimen, good nutrition and injury-prevention become a daily part of the players’ schedule; instruct the pace bowlers to bowl intelligently; schedule matches against teams in a manner that the players get enough match practice but stay fresh for the World Cup; teach Dravid and senior players how to lead the team effectively; bring cohesion into the team, and stop the bickering until the World Cup is over.

Get rid of Chappel if his performance is not up to par at the World Cup, but micromanaging him or finding his faults on a daily basis is not going to help the cause of the Indian team.

How will I know that the Indian team can win the World Cup in West Indies?  When Dravid will lead the team like Ganguly… when our top-order batsmen can send the ball crashing into the fence over-after-over like Gavaskar and the “old” Sachin rather than them crumbling to the pace attack… when the middle order batsmen can give the bowlers a decent score to work with… when our bowlers can restrict the opposition from scoring runs freely… when our fielders can turn half-chances into “outs” and boundaries into singles… when the fans and media will take the players to task when the latter waver in their determination, yet stand behind the team rather than being divisive…

(The rambling has ended    )

[puneets]

Wow! That's a detailed analysis Sharmaji. I'll reply in detail...maybe sometime tomorrow.

[PKBasu]

Quick response to Doc Bhushan's dissertation (with perhaps more to follow):
- Of course the players are ultimately responsible for the decline in their performance. Dravid's sudden lack of form in ODIs is probably a factor here: he has been a pillar of the side in tests and ODIs for the past 4 years, and his run of poor form (before the Champions Trophy) probably rubbed off on his players -- and may have contributed to his feeling that he couldn't drop his colleagues when he himself wasn't performing. He should never let this sort of factor come into play, however.
- There was one selectorial decision (made by Chappell and Dravid) that was totally unpardonable, which was the selection of Raina ahead of Kaif. There is no earthly reason for this. Both are brilliant fielders -- and Kaif in fact is marginally better, as was demonstrated by Raina dropping a catch in almost every match. Also, Kaif had been used in various positions in the order -- and acquitted himself reasonably -- while Raina seems to be stuck at #7 or 8, which means he is now in the side as a specialist fielder. Also there was no reason to drop Mongia after he got a 50 in his comeback match: Mongia also adds to our bowling options, especially in Indian conditions. Further, it was ridiculous to have dropped Powar after he bowled an excellent spell (taking 3 wickets) in the first match. The players are not responsible for selection decisions: Chappell and Dravid are, and every indication suggests that Chappell is most responsible (although Dravid's lack of assertiveness cannot be condoned).
- On leadership, I have said for some time that Dravid needs to become more of a leader. In terms of cricketing acumen, Dravid is clearly ahead of Ganguly, but it is the ineffable qualities of leadership that he has not yet shown.
- The reference to baseball and football coaches is not quite right, as the captain is the most important person in a cricket match -- way ahead of any other sport. The coach's role therefore is to support the captain (behind the scenes during and before matches) and drill the team to improve its skills during the off-season. I think it was reasonable for Chappell to have decided before arriving in India that there was no place for Ganguly, Kumble and Laxman in his ODI squad (partly because of their fielding). Bhushan's criteria of contributing in at least two disciplines out of three (batting, bowling, fielding) is a good one, and is probably similar to Chappell's thinking. But the manner in which he got rid of Ganguly was the problem (including his severe vindictiveness toward him since). Ganguly signalled to all concerned that he was not a contender for captain anymore (once Dravid had been appointed) by renouncing the East Zone captaincy last year. But Chappell did not shed his vindictiveness, having first come in with the wrong idea (that the captain needed to be removed -- an idea that he should have clearly communicated with the board and selectors before the start of his tenure). Finally, by allowing the selection of Kumble now, Chappell has been forced to surrender on one of his principles.
- On the principle of two out of three disciplines, to be a real performer at international level in any one discipline takes time. Raina is not yet a proven performer in more than one discipline (fielding). Kumble is peerless as a bowler, and reasonable as a batsman and a game trier as a fielder; ruling him out permanently was wrong (I have always said that not playing him in the World Cup final 2003 was wrong). Ganguly was proven in batting (10,000 runs at 40-plus), bowling (92 wickets mostly before he became captain, and some very good bowling in domestic cricket in England and India last year and this, after he shed the burdens of captaincy) and not a completely hopeless fielder (59 test catches, 96 in ODIs) although a slower sprinter than the likes of Raina/Yuvi/Kaif. Laxman probably fails the 2 out of 3 test because he is only about Ganguly's quality as a fielder (although he does better in tests as a slip, gully or backward short-leg fielder -- attacking positions that are used less in ODIs). But I would still select Laxman ahead of the likes of Raina, Kaif and Mongia because he is a proven batsman of quality. Ultimately, a cricket side needs specialists of class -- plus a few utility players, especially in ODIs. We cannot have utility players filling specialist positions, which is what was attempted by having Pathan at #3. As long as Dravid, Tendulkar and Sehwag were performing, the key specialist batting positions were reasonably filled. But I look at Sehwag as being a utility player in ODIs (because of his inconsistency), as is Yuvi (superb fielder, occasional bowler, fine batsman but not yet a world-beater) and the same would be true of Mongia, Raina, et al. Powar too is a utility player (whose main contributions are in bowling and batting, while his fielding is probably worse than Ganguly and Laxman). We need Laxman (or Ganguly if he can demonstrate some form first) to strengthen the spine of the specialist batting order. I'm glad that Kumble is now back to strengthen the spine of the bowling, although it would have made more sense to have him there on home soil. And between taking Powar and Raina to SA, I would certainly have picked Powar on recent performance.   

[BSharma]

PKB wrote:

The reference to baseball and football coaches is not quite right, as the captain is the most important person in a cricket match -- way ahead of any other sport. The coach's role therefore is to support the captain (behind the scenes during and before matches) and drill the team to improve its skills during the off-season.

I agree that the captain plays a far more important role in cricket than in other sports, but the way the game of cricket is managed and played is changing and evolving.  The role of coach will expand beyond what PKB has precribed, and the team that uses the coach more efficiently and completely will benefit and succeed more.

The evolution of the role of coach in cricket:
Cricket used to be a game at the highest level where the captain played several roles – leader and strategist on the field, maker of the batting line-up, coach and psychologist for the novice players, and organizer of practice sessions.  The national teams played a few test matches each year and there was not much money in cricket.  Cricket became lucrative once it was televised widely in India, the economy of India took off, ODIs came into existence, countries started playing many matches every year, professionalism came into the sport, and a cricket world championship came into existence.  National cricket boards and teams that did well and could garner sponsorships became richer and could now afford better facilities for training and play.  Cricket schools sprung up and professional coaches were hired by the teams to improve the quality of the cricketers.  Batting practices became more organized, bowlers were taught new skills, and emphasis was given to fielding, physical and mental fitness, nutrition, and rehabilitation from injuries

Coaches started off by working in the background, and Wright was a perfect example of it.  I have no doubt that in the future we will see the coach’s role expand and get closer to what we see in some professional team sports.  The role of captain will remain the same on the field, but he will get periodic input from the coach during the match.  Baseball uses hand signals to send plays from the team manager to third base coach to batter, or between catcher abd pitcher.  I will not be surprised that something similar may occur in the future in cricket once the role of coach has expanded.  Cricket coaches will notice flaws in the opposite team’s batsmen, or in their own bowlers, or in the fielding set-up and transmit the information to the captain.  Cricket will become better because we will not have situations when the Indian pace bowlers continued to bowl short pitch balls to the Australian batsmen recently or when Dravid was accused of not setting the field properly for his pace bowlers.

The coach sets the tone for the team:
The coach is the central figure in basketball, soccer, hockey, American football and baseball, and is given the charge to select the players and support staff.  His style of play determines the type of players and support staff who will make his team.  A basketball player who loves to run and shoot baskets only (offensive minded) is less likely to find a place on a team coached by a person who prefers to play a full or half court press (defensive minded).

ODIs have turned into offensive and defensive game similar to basketball, soccer, hockey and many other team sports.  Some teams are more offensive and win matches by scoring more runs than the other teams.  Other teams are more defensive in their strategy and win matches via their excellent bowling and fielding by restricting the opposition to fewer runs.  Very few national teams can perform exceptionally well in both the styles of play.  The Indian ODI team is more offensive minded and its batsmen win more matches than its bowlers outside the subcontinent.  The Indian team loses when the batsmen fail to score runs (e.g., right now when the batsmen are in a slump).

The role of Chappel and Dravid in ODIs:
The coach-captain pair in cricket should select the players on the team because they decide the character of the team.  Chappel and Dravid have been given the task to win the 2007 World Cup in West Indies, and they should get the players that best suit their philosophical approach to the game. 

IMHO, Chappel feels that having good batsmen who can field well is the ticket to the WC championship, and that pace bowlers and not spin bowlers can better contain the other teams from scoring runs on the smaller fields in West Indies.  He will play one specialist spinner and not more in West Indies.  Good batsmen who cannot field well must rectify this fault or will find themselves on the sidelines or playing in test matches where fielding is of less importance.  The Indian ODI team cannot afford to have more than one player who is weak in fielding.  Players must be good in two out of three phases of the game (batting, bowling and fielding) to make the team, and for this reason Raina (currently good only in fielding), Laxman, etc will be left out.  Harbhajan and Kumble will find themselves fighting for that one spinner spot on the team in West Indies. 

[puneets]

PKB - Great post. I agree wtih each and every word that you wrote there

I feel that Sehwag should be shown the door soon..and told to gather some form in ODI cricket. His avg is pathetic and his form is very inconsistent. He's been performing quite well in the test matches..and that is the main reason for his not getting dropped from the one-day side. He has most of the weapons for ODI cricket..his bowling form has been great ..but his batting has been highly incosistent and senseless at times.

[puneets]

Bob Woolmer and Hansie Cronje experimented with a microphone-earpiece thing in the mid 90's . The SA captain (Cronje) has a small earpiece (while fielding) in which he could hear instructions from the coach (Woolmer). ICC found this against the rules of cricket and stopped them from using it.
After the whole match-fixing saga....and Crinje's involvement, some people suspected foul play with the ear-piece thing too.

[S_K_S]

Faults = Losing

Possible solution = Win!