India’s problem is two-fold: cultural and structural

If Ravi Shastri’s brief as Cricket Director does not include preparing a comprehensive report on why and how the Indian team had a disastrous Test series in England, it would tantamount to just sabre rattling.The BCCI wanted to send out a strong message on the poor performance, which is a step in the right direction. But axing two key support staff members from coach Duncan Fletcher’s team is a major step that demands an equally strong follow-up to make the message meaningful and not papering over the crisis.

 

Shastri’s appointment has been viewed with some skepticism, not unjustifiably since he seems to be the BCCI’s perennial trouble-shooter in all crises, many of which were perhaps beyond his expertise. The current role suits him well. He has been following the India’s performances continuously for the past several years, gets along well with all key stakeholders  BCCI, Fletcher, Dhoni, the players, new assistant coaches  and is reputed to be a strong motivator.

 

But while pep talks to players is important, the bigger task is making incisive inquiries into how a team can suddenly crumble so badly and prepare a dossier than can become the springboard for creating a road map for the future. The starting point in this exercise is to analyse the problem honestly – rather than clothe it in bluster which is self-defeating in the long run. In this context, Shastri’s initial diagnosis that ‘inexperience’ was the main reason in India’s abject surrender is a half-truth. 

 

The English team, in terms of age, was not much older than India’s. Their highest run-getter was Joe Root who began his Test career in India in 2012; and that too was a series England won after losing the first Test. True, Cook, Anderson and Broad have been around for a long while and obviously enjoyed home conditions. But England were a side that looked dead beat having been whitewashed in the Ashes, defeated by Sri Lanka and lost the Lord’s Test  till the amazing turnaround.

 

Fact is teams are constantly being rebuilt, recast  unless you get players of great class and longevity all coming together. Making a song and dance about it can deflect attention for a while, but is counter-productive. Fact also is that other countries are making a determined bid to win overseas, despite the difficulty quotient. Indeed, this year has been remarkable: South Africa were beaten at home by Australia, West Indies by New Zealand, England by Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka by South Africa. Among leading teams India’s record in this aspect is dismal, with successive away defeats against South Africa, New Zealand and England. 

 

The favourite target of critics in explaining this poor showing is the IPL.In a very tactful way, even Stephen Fleming has advocated that India could perhaps restrict some players from the League and preserve them for Tests.  This is an interesting thought though empirical evidence that the IPL is detrimental to Test players is inconclusive. 

 

Apart from Michael Clarke and Hashim Amla, every star Australia and South African player is involved in the League but they are still the top two Test teams in the world. So what explains? In my opinion, Indian cricket’s problem is two-fold: cultural and structural. 

Because of the riches and clout that Indian cricket currently enjoys, there is a feeling of ‘entitlement’ in everybody, extending to the players. 

 

Damaging in itself, this gets worse because the flipside of ‘entitlement’ is ‘victimhood’ as was evident in the obsessive pursuit to punish James Anderson which boomeranged on the Indian team.

The structural aspect is in the neglect of domestic cricket. How can Indian cricket be competitive and vibrant if the country’s best players are never around to play domestic tournaments? That Indian players would benefit from playing English county cricket is not ill-founded, but misses the woods for the trees. The remedy is to be found at home, not overseas. Provided it is being sought.