Where's the imagination?
Jay Mirch - 30 March 2002

The five wise men who pull the all-important strings in Indian cricket seem to be lost on the application of psychology to team selection. Most of them are cricketing gurus of days gone by, but they have forgotten how to grope into their chest of experience and memories to pull out that exciting surprise effect. Instead, match after match, series, after series, they serve up the same diet of Javagal Srinath, Zaheer Khan, Ajit Agarkar, Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh. Ever heard of premium bowlers getting stale, Mr. Borde? It is not their lack of will or effort that causes inconsistency in the Indian team; it is your lack of imagination.

Players on a tour usually have a peculiar mindset. They know that the host country has a deep pool of probables to pick from and are wary of what awaits them. Quite understandable too, since their pre-studied, pre-videoed, pre-analysed and quantitatively limited pool is pitted against a den of hungry lions just waiting to tear at their guts and thereby further their own careers. Can you imagine the tourists' delight when they find out that the den they dreaded is led instead by a group of lambs tamely handing over the advantages of a home series by consistently firing the same blunted arrows at them?

All the regular Indian bowlers have been successful at one stage or another, but none of them are consistently successful. Why is this so? The answer, I am afraid, is relatively simple. As our resources do not provide for bowlers of awe-inspiring, hair- raising, bone-chilling speeds or javelin throwers with abilities to turn the ball on glass tabletops, we should, instead, be covering up for these drawbacks with ample variety and intelligent utilisation of available stock bowlers.

Ever wondered why Zaheer Khan and Agarkar are selectively successful in every third or fourth match they play? Ever analysed when Kumble and/or Harbhajan peak? If you haven’t, you aren’t doing your job, Mr. Borde and Co. Would you seriously consider Sachin Tendulkar, Virender Sehwag or Dinesh Mongia as a stock bowler? Yet every one of them has been successful at one time or another and a total flop when used consistently. The surprise effect of Mongia at Mohali had worn off by Kochi, and Zaheer too became a known factor after Mohali.

As good as these bowlers are, they are successful only when used as a surprise punch. Ever tried eating chocolate cake every day? You may be munching it on the third day without even thinking about it, but add a pinch of salt and you would wake up in a hurry! If you noticed, at Kochi, Douglas Hondo was the Zimbabwean pinch of salt to their chocolate cake, and he woke us up in a hurry.

Where, then, is the surprise effect of throwing Zaheer and Kumble repeatedly at the adversaries? Even a relatively mediocre team like Zimbabwe can clobber them into submission. Let’s be honest with ourselves - they are no McGrath or Warne. They are just good hard-working bowlers, trying to make an honest (but non-record- breaking) living.

The selectors carried Tinu Yohannan (twiddling his thumbs) on their selected list for much of the one-day series against Zimbabwe. Sunil Gavaskar prized him as the find of the English tour, and he is certainly one who should know. Where then is their much-publicised policy of player rotation? Don’t the knowledgeable selectors think it might have been a good idea to try out a different pace combination instead of going in with two off-spinners after Kumble was injured?

Some food for thought: Zaheer might be more effective (or for that matter, Agarkar) if played regularly in rotation with a third and fourth paceman, just so that the opposition does not get too used to the tricks barrel of the regulars. Even out here in Europe, I hear there is one promising L Balaji raising his hand for duty.

Zimbabwe’s tour of India was just the right platform to form the nucleus of a competitive team for the Caribbean, England and, a little later, the World Cup. According to me, and I am sure I am not the only one, it has been frittered away with untenable escapades such as the benched Tinu Yohannan, the incompetent Deep Dasguta, the overlooked Gautam Gambhir, the unnecessary burning- up of Kumble, Zaheer and Agarkar, the induction of Shiv Sunder Das, a first-class Test batsman but a failed one-day-man and, last but not least, the omission of a second leggie to rotate with Kumble.

Ajay Ratra, in fact, was about the only experiment they did right, but that too only after the halfway mark. One wonders whether winning is a must or just an option with our much- esteemed selectors. It did not surprise me to find Deep Dasgupta in the Test squad for the West Indies; I certainly did not bet on his omission.

Another thought that makes my blood churn is the use of Dasgupta as an opening bat in Tests. He is a slow, colourless batter, who, by virtue of his scoring pace, inspires such a sense of urgency in the batsmen following that it results in undue rash strokes and loss of wickets. Knowing that he was unsustainable as a wicket-keeper, it is anybody’s guess why the selectors wasted time on him as an opening bat instead of nurturing Sanjay Bangar, a talented and natural opening batsmen for Railways and a useful all-rounder.

The selectors, then, should stop trying to mow a meadow with their teeth and lift their sights to the abundance of talent all around them. They must throw off the constraints doing regional favours and do the job they were appointed to do. They will find it more rewarding and, if I may say so, definitely more satisfying.

The views expressed above are solely those of the guest contributor and are carried as written, with only minor editing for grammar, to preserve the original voice. These contributed columns are solely personal opinion pieces and reflect only the feelings of the guest contributor. Their being published on CricInfo.com does not amount to an endorsement by CricInfo's editorial staff of the opinions expressed.
© CricInfo

[Archive]