Commoner's Viewpoint- Uncommon view of a Commoner

By V Sreenivasan

In Search of Excellence: Lessons from the Australians
(I wrote this article almost a month before the CWC - 07 began and it was rejected by many newspapers. As I write (today is April 19, 2007) I am very surprised at how true my predictions have come. Recommend this to others if you like it.)

This article should have appeared on this page almost a month ago, when India had returned after the South African drubbing and England were all set to receive the same from Australia. Procrastination is the reason why it is appearing a month later. Some how, after the 3-0 whitewash by the Black Caps, the present time seems to be just ideal for writing this article.
That the Aussies, minus their key players, will have a tough time against old rivals Black Caps was obvious. That they lost 3-0 to the Kiwis, especially having posted scores in excess of 330 on two occasions was unexpected and pleasantly surprising to many who are seeing the Aussies lose so bitterly after quite a long time. In this context, it is interesting to note that the four highest successful chases in ODIs and the highest successful chase in the Tests have been made against the Australians. Of course the situation is not bad as it is being made out by some and here is why.
Every team revolves around a bunch of key players. In India, it is the trio of Ganguly, Dravid, Tendulkar, and Yuvraj & Dhoni who were the architects of the record breaking straight successive chases. For Pakistan Asif, Akhtar, Inzamam and Yousuf are the key players. Similarly for West Indies-Gayle, Lara and Chanderpaul do the same job as done by the above mentioned for their respective countries.
Without their key players and experienced and reliable campaigners, almost all teams are vulnerable and there is a significant likelihood that they might even lose to the minnows of cricket (i.e. Zimbabwe, Kenya and Bangladesh). However despite all this, I must concede that at 41 for 4, I didn’t give the Kiwis any chance of even coming close to the target, let alone to go on to win the match. The last two months have been a roller-coaster ride for the cricket viewer which will be discussed in the coming articles.




Please try and find out the similarities in the following.
(a)Bangladesh Vs Australia. Mohammed Ashraful scores a century.
(b)India Vs Australia. VVS Laxman scores 281 in Eden Gardens.
(c)South Africa Vs Australia. Herschelle Gibbs scores 175.
(d)England Vs Australia. Ashes 2005.

These matches will be remembered not only because they produced nail-biting finishes, but also the most unexpected and dramatic results. In all the above cases, the opponents snatched victory from the Australian jaws of defeat. After every such defeat self-proclaimed pundits and gurus predicted-This is the end of the juggernaut. This is the beginning of the end of the invincible Australian Team. But they were all proved wrong. With every setback, with every defeat, they emerged older and stronger like the proverbial warriors whom we have about in stories.
Some reminders to those who have a very short memory.
The sensational win over Australia was the only one Bangladesh could muster in the entire series. David Vs Goliath was over.

Australia won the ODI series that followed the test series. Three years later Ponting fulfilled his predecessor’s wish by conquering the ‘Last Frontier’ (i.e. India).

After the unforgettable defeat at the hands of the South Africans, the Wizards of Oz made a clean sweep of the test series that followed it.

As for the last case, it is assumed that the reader is aware of current state of affairs of the English team.

Great successful teams are famous for their defeats than for their victories. As the above paragraphs have proved by now, this is a fitting description of the invincible Aussies. The opposite is true for the rest of the teams, especially for the current Indian team. Consistency is the hallmark of all successful teams and individuals. Australia is no exception to this rule. The same consistency is missing consistently among the rest of the teams (Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Kenya excluded). It must also be noted that Australia has not budged an inch from the topmost spot for almost eight years in a row. In contrast, all the other teams have oscillated from one extreme to the other like a pendulum. It is no surprise then that the ‘kangaroos have won more than 90% of the tournaments/contests they have participated. If this consistency were to be taken into account, the ranking system would point to a greater disparity among the teams.
But if this Australian team is really so great, then why did it lose the Ashes in 2005? The answer is simple. England’s high coincided with Australia’s low and with some luck and a lot of guts the Englishmen snatched the coveted urn for the first time in 18 years. A year and half later, the tables have turned and the Australians have bounced back. Looking back, the revenge could not have been any sweeter and the script couldn’t have been any better.
What about the Rest of the World eleven match with the Australians? Again the answer is simple. Almost the entire Australian top-order and middle-order is in the top 10 of ICC rankings. Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath have more than 2000 wickets between them in both the versions of the game. Gilchrist is unanimously considered the best wicket-keeper in the world and is way ahead of others in the race. Ponting, Clarke and Hussey are currently one of the best fielders in international cricket. Barring a few, most of the players in the Rest of the World 11 team was just not good enough to beat the Aussies.

What can we learn from them?
In a democracy those who should be selected do not how to get selected and those who
select do not whom to select. The following questions should clarify my point.

Why was Sehwag retained (never an all-rounder, now a non-performer i.e. a liability) at the cost of Irfan Pathan (who was at least batting better than others)?

Is it surprising that Ganguly, a player with 10,000 + runs in the shorter version of the game and someone who was discarded by the team and the media, should emerge as the highest scorer in the Test series for India?

In a game dominated by batsmen and in a country which has produced some of the best batsmen of our times (Sachin, Ganguly and Dravid have more than
30,000 runs between them) and very few bowlers who could be called reliable and consistent performers, again is it not inexplicable that we still hesitate to go with five bowlers when it is the bare minimum required?

Except for two players (Brett Lee and Michael Clarke), all the other members of the team which I described in the preceding paragraphs are above 30. That being the case, why are we obsessed with trying out everyone who has scored a half-century in the domestic league? Why are we hell-bent on creating successors of Sachin, Ganguly and Dravid out of players who are not capable of being one and when there is no need to?

(One of the main reasons why we lost to Australia in CWC 03 was that Ganguly preferred Zaheer & Nehra over Kumble and Agarkar. Besides we had seven batsman and four bowlers. The seventh being Dinesh Mongia, who was at best, a part-time bowler.)

Even in Sunday’s match against West Indies, we had Dinesh Kartik as the seventh batsman? By the time the seventh batsman comes out to bat, he has very few overs left to “spend some time at the crease”. It means two things-Either the batsman should be a bowler or he should be at least a pinch hitter. When he is neither of the two, he becomes a liability. Dinesh Kartik may have a produced a match winning effort in the next match, but he shouldn’t be expected to do what the top six could not.

Many such questions can be raised, but they all point to the same answer. The first step in creating a successful team is in selecting the right player. No matter how you many times you rub a piece of glass, it will never become a diamond. Batsmen may have glamour and may be seen doing commercials on your TV, but what India needs is bowlers. Bowlers who are good as the batsmen in the team they are playing for. Bowlers who can fit into the league of all-time greats like Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Curtly Ambrose, Shane Warne, Muttiah Muralitharan, Glenn McGrath etc. Great teams are great because they have a bowling which is generally stronger than their batting, instead of being the other way round, as it is in the case of India.

Now let us look at the answers.
The reason why we won the ODI tournaments against Pakistan, England and Sri Lanka was due to match-winners like Pathan, Yuvraj Singh and Dhoni. During this period there wasn’t any significant or noticeable contribution from Sehwag. Besides it is obvious in ODI cricket that a player can remain in a team if he is an exceptional performer either with the bat or the ball. In case of Sehwag, he is just an impulsive, entertaining and at times intimidating player who happens to be a decent fielder and at best, a part-time bowler. In contrast, Hayden despite having an average of 40+ is finding it hard to secure a place in the Australian team.

The selectors hesitated to drop Ganguly when he was facing a drought of runs. Later when he started scoring runs, the selectors opted for ‘Young Turks’ like Raina, Kaif and Jaffer. The selectors forgot that “A known devil is better than an unknown angel”. It is no wonder that the batting line-up crumbled like ninepins against hostile fast bowling. It is no surprise that Ganguly emerged as the only player to have a 40+ average during the Test series. In contrast the Australian selectors will drop a player at the first signs of inconsistency and will pick up a player only after rigorous trials.

The Caribbean team of the 70s and 80s were feared for their bowling than for their bowling. A quarter of a century later, the invincible Australian team has given the world some of the best bowlers modern cricket has seen, in the form of McGrath and Warne. On the other hand we are still obsessed with our batting and hesitate to go with five specialist bowlers in conditions that are favourable to the batsmen. In this context, it must be noted that every team (Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Kenya excluded) has at least two batsmen with a 40 + average, 70+ strike rate and 3000 runs in the shorter version of the game. However there are very few bowlers with an average below 25 and an economy rate under 4.5. For Example McGrath and Bracken.

By now the adage “Ignore youth at your own peril” has been proved wrong. Thrashing inexperienced and depleted bowling attacks in one’s backyard is child’s play whereas standing up against aggressive and hostile fast bowling in alien conditions calls for a big heart and unwavering determination which was not surprisingly found missing in our half-baked, lily-livered and spineless ‘Young Turks’. At 33, Ponting is the best fielder around and McGrath at 37, is doing his job better than anyone else. What everybody, including the selectors and pundits missed was “ Apne galli mein to kutta bhi sher hota hai”



Talent is debatable, utility is not. I am certainly no fan of Raina and Kaif, however the selection of Kartik over them has left me stumped. A comparison between a typical Australian team and the average Indian team should clarify.
Gilchrist Sehwag/Uthappa
Hayden Tendulkar
Ponting Dravid
Clarke Ganguly
Symonds Dhoni
Hussey Yuvraj
Hogg Kartik
Lee Zaheer
Bracken Pathan/Sreesanth
McGrath Patel
Tait/Clark Kumble/Harbhajan

In Lee, McGrath and Bracken, the Kangaroos have the most reliable and lethal bowling attack in the world. Hogg is a specialist spinner who can turn the ball both ways. Symonds and Clarke are useful and effective part-time bowlers. The Australian fielding complements the bowling and takes care of any bowling lapses. Almost all the batsmen are in superb form and have been consistently in the top 10 rankings for ODI batsmen.

Now contrast this with the state of affairs of the Men in Blue.
Tendulkar and Dravid are trying to regain their touch and Yuvraj needs practice. Dhoni and Ganguly are the only ones who have been scoring the runs for India. Pathan and Kumble are trying hard to secure their spots. Munaf and Zaheer are the only ones to have troubled the batsmen.

Moral of the Story: Perception and reality are never the same. I don’t want the reader to be a pessimist, however bear in mind that the higher one goes, the harder he hits the ground the ground when he falls.
The appointment of Greg Chappell hasn’t changed the fortunes of the Indian team. This should point to a more fundamental and deep-rooted malaise in the establishment. Hopefully this article has served its intended purpose i.e. to provide a different view of the way things work in India and in Australia.