Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[CLR James]

If there is one area that needs to be looked into after this debacle is the matter of confidence. By this I mean both team confidence and that of respective individuals. A few points for your consideration:

1. ALL our batsmen look tentative in their shot selection and unassured in their footwork. Even Rahul Dravid, the man in some sort of form, has taken 155 deliveries to score 52 in the first innings, and 60 to score 9 in the second! Sehwag and SRT look like shadows of their former selves. Apart from WJ (who is trying to find his bearings in tests) and RD, all our batsmen are stroke players. They need a decisive and aggressive edge in their batting in order to dominate and succeed. Unfortunately that has not happened. How can one explain the fact that while the Warnes and Muralis have cold sweats when asked to come to India, it is Shane Udal who ran through our side? How can one explain the spate of soft dismissals and dropped catches? It can't be some sort of an epidemic can it? It has to be in the mind somewhere. People are pre-occupied and I think insecure.

2. I have a theory. Much like the feudal modes of Indian society, Indian cricket is also often about privileges and the notion of status that comes with it. Hence VVS is not just a senior cricketer compared to Suresh Raina, but also an 'elder' one who is to be 'respected'. Love and loyalty play major roles in this structure of emotions and not just cold professional calculations that might for instance call for the replacement of a Damien Martyn with Mike Hussey. It is because of this that we persisted with Kapil between 1993-94 despite knowing that Srinath was at that point the better bowler (it is not that Kapil was not that Kapil did not deliver at all, but that Sri was clearly on the rise -- much fitter, faster etc.). It is because of this that we had so much noise about the SG affair. The mindset in other words, is not as professional as we would like it to be. One should consider this bad, but it is also true that it ill not go away in a hurry. Any management should keep in mind the factor of time when trying to change things. Often the approach required is a slow one.

3. Now when a new agenda is announced, it brings players out of their comfort zone. There are some good things about that. It sends people like SG back to the nets. But there are also bad things. I would imagine that it would be difficult for a VVS or an SG to be evaluated on an equitable scale with a Raina or a Kaif. It becomes even worse if it is announced that because of their age, the latter two already have an edge over the former pair. It really does not help if the coach of the Indian team announces that the IDEAL is to get a team with an average age of 23-24 years. If you are 32 (in our age of high fitness technology this should be like 29 compared to Gavaskar's generation) it tells you that you are already on your way out as per this philosophy. The tables in other words, have turned. Previously if you were a senior with an impressive record to fall back on, you would be given a long rope of failure. Now it seems that if you are 30 plus every failure will set the clock ticking, the alarm bells ringing, and the scanner switched on. We have moved onto the other extreme. Now if a senior like VVS averages 40 up in a series, it is somehow not good enough. If SG scores 39 and 40 in a come back match (with feet moving well), that is bad enough for him to be dropped. On the other hand, we continue to persist with Gambhir (imagine what would happen if VVS or SG averaged 3 in a test series!).

It seems it has affected bowlers like HS too. Indian cricketers are unfortunately prima donnas, but if you treat them any differently, unfortunately they lose confidence. Your thoughts please.

[toney]

OK, the entire post is beautifully written. There is a small oversight (and am nitpicking). HS bowled very well in this test and he has been a force to reckon with in the ODIs. I know this has little to do with the intention of your post, just pointing it out.

[kban1]

CLR:

Excellent post --very pertinent points.

Kind of goes back to the management aspects, doesnt it  ? Specifically human capital management (man management) and change management -- both areas that I felt we have failed in during the past year (made a specific reference to that before in a couple of posts and now even an MBA course is discussing the same, LOL).

Ultimately, if you cannot tailor your solution to the situation, then the solution is likely to fail. Don't give up on the basic goal (performance) but implement it after taking into account the ground realities.

Applause for you.

[toney]

CLR, I was the first one to applaud, not KBan like he wants to make it sound. Nice try, kban

[suraj]

Excellent post CLR- I applaude you!!!

An additional point though

4. To attack or to defend- Confidence is a part of it- the other aspect is its not juts SRT caught between defending or attacking or his natural game (whatever that means)- it seems th whole team is. Despite my bitterness abt yesterday's defeat, I am very optimistic abt ODIs simply because the team has been trained in that mould now and things are simpler.

The same RD scoring the way you said knows his role- accumulate at a run a a bowl, the same vS knows if he gives a good opening burst its good enuff, the same SRT does not have 8 close in fielders- can choose to anchor if IP/MSD are kiccking ass or step it up a notch if the overs are running out and as for IP and MSD- they have shone in ODIs.

I am a big supporter of RD/GC and absolutely believed that they have improved the team but I really don't think right now GC or the team has a clue abt test strategy and skills. They are caught between aggressive battig vs blocking, agressive field set vs defensive, five bowlers vs 6 batsman, fielding first to show aggression or batting to stick to the norm etc etc.

They are attacking badly, being unable to defend when they want and end up playing their natural game of getting skittled as in Pak first and now at home.

This dilemma is crucial to resolve because we really have two teams- an apt ODI and a crap test team where Dhoni plunders 150+ in ODIs and plays "catching practice for England" in tests.

[kban1]

toney:

CLR, I was the first one to applaud, not KBan like he wants to make it sound. Nice try, kban

LOL, Did I deny that you applauded CLR ?

Actually I found CLR's take quite interesting, not least because I found another mind echoing my thoughts. Plus where as I touched on the broad outlines, he has zeroed in on the specifics and has presented it a lot more succintly than I would have.

[kban1]

suraj:

Agree with your analysis about the confusion between attack and defense -- and the failure to determine which needs to applied when, especially in relation to tests.

Applause!!

[prfsr]

CLR:

Excellent post --very pertinent points.

Kind of goes back to the management aspects, doesnt it  ? Specifically human capital management (man management) and change management -- both areas that I felt we have failed in during the past year (made a specific reference to that before in a couple of posts and now even an MBA course is discussing the same, LOL).

Ultimately, if you cannot tailor your solution to the situation, then the solution is likely to fail. Don't give up on the basic goal (performance) but implement it after taking into account the ground realities.

Applause for you.

Completely agree with you and CLR -- even though I know little about management. It is very sad that criticism or doubt about GC's techniques are automatically equated to blind support for SG.

The coach's job is really difficult -- you have to get people out of their comfort zones, but not into positions of extreme discomfort. This line is blurry and subjective and varies with people. I believe that SRT has been affected by GC's philosophy. Can't prove it obviously.

On the other hand, everything that GC has done is focussed on ODIs so it is no surprise that we are failing in tests. Sadly, we do not have a good overseas tour to know if the ODI successes will carry on abroad.

-P

[yorker]

Good points CLR

One thing current team management is missing is identifying the difference between ODI and Test matches. In ODI you can do an experiment and get away with it easily. However in testmatch each action counts and might cost dearly. Batsman riding his luck for 30 min can win you a match in one-day but not in test match.

Moreover one foolish argument is that age is against VVS and SG. Batsmen get to their prime at around 28 – 35 if they are fit. This is the time when they have experienced situations and are matured technically and mentally. They have a stable head on their neck unlike Dhoni yesterday. Moreover you do not need too athletic people for test matches. All you need is people who have reasonably good flexes and safe hands in field. Show me the test matches which are won due to some acrobatic catching and fielding. However on the other side many testmatches are lost because of a dropped catch or rash shot.

So, Maturity is the word for tests. I personally would not advocate Rainas and Chawlas in test cricket right away. They can wait and gain lot of experience playing Ranjis and A/B tours.

[suraj]

thanks kban and agree with u prfsr

GC is focussed on ODIs becase of WC 07 but thats where we have decisions to make. With the caveat of away from subcontinent tours, GC/RD have done well in ODIs. In a separate post, I had asked members if WC win covers for average performance in tests. So while the ideal (and in some's opinion the only satisfactory situation is success in both) do we reign in RD/GC and ask them to pull up their socks because their job is for both ODIs and tests and not just for ODIs.

This means asking them to have a clear plan and talent available for the tests- not employing same tactics or using same criteria for both ODIs and tests and even evaluating them with repurcussions for failures in tests. or do we give a free reign to chieve WC 07 goal if they are really really good in ODIs.

Members overwhelmingly wanted success and accountability in both which means more creative solutions rather than repeating the ODI mantra and hoping for the best

[suraj]

Good points CLR

One thing current team management is missing is identifying the difference between ODI and Test matches. In ODI you can do an experiment and get away with it easily. However in testmatch each action counts and might cost dearly. Batsman riding his luck for 30 min can win you a match in one-day but not in test match.

Moreover one foolish argument is that age is against VVS and SG. Batsmen get to their prime at around 28 – 35 if they are fit. This is the time when they have experienced situations and are matured technically and mentally. They have a stable head on their neck unlike Dhoni yesterday. Moreover you do not need too athletic people for test matches. All you need is people who have reasonably good flexes and safe hands in field. Show me the test matches which are won due to some acrobatic catching and fielding. However on the other side many testmatches are lost because of a dropped catch or rash shot.

So, Maturity is the word for tests. I personally would not advocate Rainas and Chawlas in test cricket right away. They can wait and gain lot of experience playing Ranjis and A/B tours.

Ditto

Not age but pure performance shd be criteria for folks like SG or VVS. Now their performance is a whole different discussion.

[dextrous]

OK, the entire post is beautifully written. There is a small oversight (and am nitpicking). HS bowled very well in this test and he has been a force to reckon with in the ODIs. I know this has little to do with the intention of your post, just pointing it out.

Toney,
It is a myth that Singh is a great ODI bowler. I'm a fan of Singh, but look at cricinfo's breakdown of his stats. He takes no more than 1 or 2 wickets every game in an age where 4 or 5 wicket hauls are common.

[toney]

OK, the entire post is beautifully written. There is a small oversight (and am nitpicking). HS bowled very well in this test and he has been a force to reckon with in the ODIs. I know this has little to do with the intention of your post, just pointing it out.

Toney,
It is a myth that Singh is a great ODI bowler. I'm a fan of Singh, but look at cricinfo's breakdown of his stats. He takes no more than 1 or 2 wickets every game in an age where 4 or 5 wicket hauls are common.

What? 4-5 wkts in an ODI? Dont think so, especially in this age when wkts come mainly to catches on the boundary.

[ramshorns]

With Powar in the team, HS should have been dropped.  Some guys are always considered no matter what??Why not pick Chawla or Amit Mishra??

[yorker]

With Powar in the team, HS should have been dropped.  Some guys are always considered no matter what??Why not pick Chawla or Amit Mishra??

Please no Chawla. Don't make another Parthiv here. Let me enjoy couple of season in ranji and A/B tours. Let him get used to higher standards. One season in ranji and couple of good matches in under-19 doesn't make him ready for big league. Not every one is SRT.

[Cernunnos]

If there is one area that needs to be looked into after this debacle is the matter of confidence. By this I mean both team confidence and that of respective individuals. A few points for your consideration:

1. ALL our batsmen look tentative in their shot selection and unassured in their footwork. Even Rahul Dravid, the man in some sort of form, has taken 155 deliveries to score 52 in the first innings, and 60 to score 9 in the second! Sehwag and SRT look like shadows of their former selves. Apart from WJ (who is trying to find his bearings in tests) and RD, all our batsmen are stroke players. They need a decisive and aggressive edge in their batting in order to dominate and succeed. Unfortunately that has not happened. How can one explain the fact that while the Warnes and Muralis have cold sweats when asked to come to India, it is Shane Udal who ran through our side? How can one explain the spate of soft dismissals and dropped catches? It can't be some sort of an epidemic can it? It has to be in the mind somewhere. People are pre-occupied and I think insecure.

2. I have a theory. Much like the feudal modes of Indian society, Indian cricket is also often about privileges and the notion of status that comes with it. Hence VVS is not just a senior cricketer compared to Suresh Raina, but also an 'elder' one who is to be 'respected'. Love and loyalty play major roles in this structure of emotions and not just cold professional calculations that might for instance call for the replacement of a Damien Martyn with Mike Hussey. It is because of this that we persisted with Kapil between 1993-94 despite knowing that Srinath was at that point the better bowler (it is not that Kapil was not that Kapil did not deliver at all, but that Sri was clearly on the rise -- much fitter, faster etc.). It is because of this that we had so much noise about the SG affair. The mindset in other words, is not as professional as we would like it to be. One should consider this bad, but it is also true that it ill not go away in a hurry. Any management should keep in mind the factor of time when trying to change things. Often the approach required is a slow one.

3. Now when a new agenda is announced, it brings players out of their comfort zone. There are some good things about that. It sends people like SG back to the nets. But there are also bad things. I would imagine that it would be difficult for a VVS or an SG to be evaluated on an equitable scale with a Raina or a Kaif. It becomes even worse if it is announced that because of their age, the latter two already have an edge over the former pair. It really does not help if the coach of the Indian team announces that the IDEAL is to get a team with an average age of 23-24 years. If you are 32 (in our age of high fitness technology this should be like 29 compared to Gavaskar's generation) it tells you that you are already on your way out as per this philosophy. The tables in other words, have turned. Previously if you were a senior with an impressive record to fall back on, you would be given a long rope of failure. Now it seems that if you are 30 plus every failure will set the clock ticking, the alarm bells ringing, and the scanner switched on. We have moved onto the other extreme. Now if a senior like VVS averages 40 up in a series, it is somehow not good enough. If SG scores 39 and 40 in a come back match (with feet moving well), that is bad enough for him to be dropped. On the other hand, we continue to persist with Gambhir (imagine what would happen if VVS or SG averaged 3 in a test series!).

It seems it has affected bowlers like HS too. Indian cricketers are unfortunately prima donnas, but if you treat them any differently, unfortunately they lose confidence. Your thoughts please.

Yes, you can't overstate the inportance of confidence. Players like Harbhajan Singh and Sehwag owe their cricketing careers to Ganguly. Their precocious talent flowered under him. Their best cricketing moments were under his captaincy. Ganguly handpicked Harbhajan from nowhere when he was set to become a truck driver in the US. When John Wright slapped Sehwag, it was Ganguly who stood by him demanding an apology. Such things are not easily forgotten. When they see their new boss openly ridiculing their former mentor, throwing aspersions on his character by accusing him of hanging in there for the money and faking injuries when convenient, it is bound to have a morale shattering effect on his wards. It's no surprise that Sehwag and HS have been failing, two pillars of our recent home success.

[dextrous]

Wright slapped Sehwag?

[toney]

OK, repeated assertions dont make a false statement true.
HS is in very good bowling form. Of course, he might go ahead and me=ake me eat my words. But I am talking of the ODIs and this test.
VS has been in a rut against Eng (in spite of the 70+ in Mohali). BUt he got at least one big innings in Pak. Did the pitch being a featherbed make up for all the pressure that GC's approach has created?

Of course, if a point is to be proven at any cost, such little matters can be put aside.

[Cernunnos]

Wright slapped Sehwag?

Yes, there was an incident that happened on the England tour of 2002.

[Cernunnos]

OK, repeated assertions dont make a false statement true.
HS is in very good bowling form. Of course, he might go ahead and me=ake me eat my words. But I am talking of the ODIs and this test.

ODI bowling is quite different where you can bowl flat and in a containing role. Test bowling is about striking a rhythm, which I haven't seen HS do in a while.

VS has been in a rut against Eng (in spite of the 70+ in Mohali). BUt he got at least one big innings in Pak. Did the pitch being a featherbed make up for all the pressure that GC's approach has created?

Of course, if a point is to be proven at any cost, such little matters can be put aside.

VS averaged 18 against SL, averaged 19 against Eng. Barring that one innings, he did nothing against Pak. But you can say he is in good form if you insist.

[Libran]

If there is one area that needs to be looked into after this debacle is the matter of confidence. By this I mean both team confidence and that of respective individuals. A few points for your consideration:

1. ALL our batsmen look tentative in their shot selection and unassured in their footwork. Even Rahul Dravid, the man in some sort of form, has taken 155 deliveries to score 52 in the first innings, and 60 to score 9 in the second! Sehwag and SRT look like shadows of their former selves. Apart from WJ (who is trying to find his bearings in tests) and RD, all our batsmen are stroke players. They need a decisive and aggressive edge in their batting in order to dominate and succeed. Unfortunately that has not happened. How can one explain the fact that while the Warnes and Muralis have cold sweats when asked to come to India, it is Shane Udal who ran through our side? How can one explain the spate of soft dismissals and dropped catches? It can't be some sort of an epidemic can it? It has to be in the mind somewhere. People are pre-occupied and I think insecure.

2. I have a theory. Much like the feudal modes of Indian society, Indian cricket is also often about privileges and the notion of status that comes with it. Hence VVS is not just a senior cricketer compared to Suresh Raina, but also an 'elder' one who is to be 'respected'. Love and loyalty play major roles in this structure of emotions and not just cold professional calculations that might for instance call for the replacement of a Damien Martyn with Mike Hussey. It is because of this that we persisted with Kapil between 1993-94 despite knowing that Srinath was at that point the better bowler (it is not that Kapil was not that Kapil did not deliver at all, but that Sri was clearly on the rise -- much fitter, faster etc.). It is because of this that we had so much noise about the SG affair. The mindset in other words, is not as professional as we would like it to be. One should consider this bad, but it is also true that it ill not go away in a hurry. Any management should keep in mind the factor of time when trying to change things. Often the approach required is a slow one.

3. Now when a new agenda is announced, it brings players out of their comfort zone. There are some good things about that. It sends people like SG back to the nets. But there are also bad things. I would imagine that it would be difficult for a VVS or an SG to be evaluated on an equitable scale with a Raina or a Kaif. It becomes even worse if it is announced that because of their age, the latter two already have an edge over the former pair. It really does not help if the coach of the Indian team announces that the IDEAL is to get a team with an average age of 23-24 years. If you are 32 (in our age of high fitness technology this should be like 29 compared to Gavaskar's generation) it tells you that you are already on your way out as per this philosophy. The tables in other words, have turned. Previously if you were a senior with an impressive record to fall back on, you would be given a long rope of failure. Now it seems that if you are 30 plus every failure will set the clock ticking, the alarm bells ringing, and the scanner switched on. We have moved onto the other extreme. Now if a senior like VVS averages 40 up in a series, it is somehow not good enough. If SG scores 39 and 40 in a come back match (with feet moving well), that is bad enough for him to be dropped. On the other hand, we continue to persist with Gambhir (imagine what would happen if VVS or SG averaged 3 in a test series!).

It seems it has affected bowlers like HS too. Indian cricketers are unfortunately prima donnas, but if you treat them any differently, unfortunately they lose confidence. Your thoughts please.

CLR...doffing my hat ....Great piece of writing !! I envy you mate !! How much ever I try, just can't put it so succintly 

[avinashgodkhindi]

CLR Brilliant, i must admit this is really great analysis.

Also suraj's post on our team's dillema(s) makes a lot of sense. i too supported GC's theory of kick on the backside but I think may be it has been done a little to harshly and quickly, thus building too much insecurity. thats my guess.

[CLR James]

Thanks Ravi and Avinash,

I too think it is a matter of change being applied too quickly and too peremptorily, without giving people and an entire society time to adjust to it. GC is to be blamed for that. It is foolhardy to apply alien management techniques in a completely different cultural context without measures of adjustment. For instance, postwar Japan did very very well for over three decades following a corporate structure that was drawn from social traditions that can be traced back to the Meji restoration toward the end of the nineteenth century. As per that, you could literally slave drive your executives, making them work for inhuman hours (something you could not do in a western context without the fear of unionization or being sued). But the other side was that you had to take care of that person too, and grant him or her the status of being a part of the clan or family. When towards the nineties, Japanese firms began to apply the American hire and fire, golden handshake line, the rate of executive suicides in Japan went up dramatically. People just could not accept the fact that one could be asked to leave because of certain structural adjustments after a life time of devoted service. For them it was the ultimate betrayal of some santified codes of honor and brotherhood.

Perhaps the 'Australian way' that GC talks about is inevitable. Perhaps the next generation of cricketers will be far more psychologically attuned to it than the present lot, but that can happen only with time.

[kban1]

CLR:

Another excellent example to illustrate your points. Well written as usual.

Applause!!

[colonel]

Beautifully put, as usual by CLR.

[schumi]

If there is one area that needs to be looked into after this debacle is the matter of confidence. By this I mean both team confidence and that of respective individuals. A few points for your consideration:

1. ALL our batsmen look tentative in their shot selection and unassured in their footwork. Even Rahul Dravid, the man in some sort of form, has taken 155 deliveries to score 52 in the first innings, and 60 to score 9 in the second! Sehwag and SRT look like shadows of their former selves. Apart from WJ (who is trying to find his bearings in tests) and RD, all our batsmen are stroke players. They need a decisive and aggressive edge in their batting in order to dominate and succeed. Unfortunately that has not happened. How can one explain the fact that while the Warnes and Muralis have cold sweats when asked to come to India, it is Shane Udal who ran through our side? How can one explain the spate of soft dismissals and dropped catches? It can't be some sort of an epidemic can it? It has to be in the mind somewhere. People are pre-occupied and I think insecure.

2. I have a theory. Much like the feudal modes of Indian society, Indian cricket is also often about privileges and the notion of status that comes with it. Hence VVS is not just a senior cricketer compared to Suresh Raina, but also an 'elder' one who is to be 'respected'. Love and loyalty play major roles in this structure of emotions and not just cold professional calculations that might for instance call for the replacement of a Damien Martyn with Mike Hussey. It is because of this that we persisted with Kapil between 1993-94 despite knowing that Srinath was at that point the better bowler (it is not that Kapil was not that Kapil did not deliver at all, but that Sri was clearly on the rise -- much fitter, faster etc.). It is because of this that we had so much noise about the SG affair. The mindset in other words, is not as professional as we would like it to be. One should consider this bad, but it is also true that it ill not go away in a hurry. Any management should keep in mind the factor of time when trying to change things. Often the approach required is a slow one.

3. Now when a new agenda is announced, it brings players out of their comfort zone. There are some good things about that. It sends people like SG back to the nets. But there are also bad things. I would imagine that it would be difficult for a VVS or an SG to be evaluated on an equitable scale with a Raina or a Kaif. It becomes even worse if it is announced that because of their age, the latter two already have an edge over the former pair. It really does not help if the coach of the Indian team announces that the IDEAL is to get a team with an average age of 23-24 years. If you are 32 (in our age of high fitness technology this should be like 29 compared to Gavaskar's generation) it tells you that you are already on your way out as per this philosophy. The tables in other words, have turned. Previously if you were a senior with an impressive record to fall back on, you would be given a long rope of failure. Now it seems that if you are 30 plus every failure will set the clock ticking, the alarm bells ringing, and the scanner switched on. We have moved onto the other extreme. Now if a senior like VVS averages 40 up in a series, it is somehow not good enough. If SG scores 39 and 40 in a come back match (with feet moving well), that is bad enough for him to be dropped. On the other hand, we continue to persist with Gambhir (imagine what would happen if VVS or SG averaged 3 in a test series!).

It seems it has affected bowlers like HS too. Indian cricketers are unfortunately prima donnas, but if you treat them any differently, unfortunately they lose confidence. Your thoughts please.

Great post CLR. In fact I have a perfect example from my own career. It was 1995/96 and I was working in this software company which had many banking products, all Foxpro based. The software was being sold like hot cakes and the company decided to go for a public issue and suddenly there was money to burn. Now, we were a bunch of bread winners (guys who go and implement, enhance and support the software) and most of us were mere graduates(The B.sc, B.A, B.Coms). The co., started a new product division to build the same banking products but on latest technology. This was headed by a director (IIM MBA guy) who believed that only BE/MCA/MBA can work on this new technology and as a result we were suddenly outlaws. The product div had separate office, diff work culture, higher pay scales but what they did not have was experience. Obviously the sauravs and laxmans (us) got pissed off with all this and started quitting one by one. Also the new recruits in the product div, found greener pastures and were also quitting left right and center.Slowly the existing business started dying and since there was no one to provide the knowledge transfer, the new product took ages to develop and by the time it was released, it was no more new technology and worst case, there were bigger gaps in the functionality!!! By then, the company had run into cash flow problems, not being able to pay salaries and lived a hand to mouth existence till recently before being sold off.

Change is good and is a must. But to change overnight is impossible. 

b.t.w I have nothing against BE/MCA/MBAs and appreciate the hard work they put in toward studies.