Looking at Trent Johnson marshal the Irish side today against the Poms, one cannot help but marvel at his tactical acumen, his reading of the game, his understanding of the caliber of his resources and the awareness of match situations.
Ever since he brought the field up against a rampaging Stuart Matsikenyeri with the game on the line, his captaincy has impressed me.
Contrasting Trent Johnson and his 15 odd International ODIs is Rahul Dravid. And the contrast could not be starker.
So here is a thought - we keep harping about Sachins cricketing nous and Rahuls cerebral approach, but in what context? Our emphasis has always been on the hard skills ( batting, bowling, technique etc) - skills that are individualistic in nature.. We pay scant attention to the soft skills ( the flow of the game, the thought behind the game , resource marshaling etc)...
Does this reflect in our cricketing approach also?
--
Talking of coaches ( from my earlier post), I have yet to come across one who takes the extra effort to explain the dynamics of the game versus quoting verbatim from the MCC Coaching manual.
How often has there been a case where the coach, in addition to demonstrating how a shot should be played, actually gone on to explain why the shot should be played and how in that particular instance, for that particular delivery, that is the best option by process of elimination?
And when presented with alternatives, how often have coaches gone the extra mile to explore those options vis a vis the ones already available?
Does this approach , in some way, hamper the development of budding cricketers? Cricketers who play the correct shots with their elbows high but without quite understanding the thinking behind their actions..
--
Chime in... I would love to know :)
Friday, March 30, 2007
Thoughts..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think the comparison is a non-starter. Johnson has nothing to lose and doesn't have a billion idiots breathing down his neck.
Besides, hes going to win one game in 5...
Too much is made of tactics and acumen - those are secondary to batting and bowling. And Johnson wins 1 in 5 because of his batting and bowling, and not because of his lack of tactical acumen.
Theres too much anecdotal, ill founded analysis going around. If you want to read a really well considered bit of analysis - read Ian Chappell's article about Tendulkar on Cricinfo. It is an unapologetic opinion, and yet it is well founded and doesn't claim foundation beyond what it states.
Dravid has made several very very good moves - all of which are ignored. Captaincy in that respect is like wicket keeping.
If Dravid had been in Jayawardene's place South Africa, he would have been destroyed in the Indian press for having a deep third man and a deep fine leg with 1 required to tie. Yet, Jayawardene hasn't been crucified.
Shows you the difference between a people watching sport and India. Read Sangakkara's article about this.
Kartikeya,
You are missing the point this is not about Johnson being a better captain than Dravid - it is about whether we even focus on the soft skills growing up and whether that becomes a deterrent later on..
Let me rephrase that - when was the last time you saw an Indian captain in action and said -yeah, this guy is on top of things?
--
Read Ian Chappells article late last nite.. waiting for the furore to begin.. :)
--
Dravid has made good moves - and I have written about those - but they have been in the test match arena. Thats why I want him retained as test match skipper.
--
Jaywardane did not have a slip - thats where he went wrong.. talking about fielding, Jagadish at cricket24x7 has an interesting take on Danny Vettori's hat trick and the ball after.
Youre right...... we don't. Dravid and co. do. Thats why when it works, we overlook it. And when it does not work (i. e. when India lose) we focus on all these things like we were the first to have thought of them.
I don't intend this as a criticism of your point in particular. But i do think that much of the Cricketing View today is a result of the way Indian Cricket is viewed, rather than of the way it is played.
Kartikeya,
The question then becomes - why do we overlook it? Is it because we are so obsessed with batsmen and bowlers and style and technique and numbers that we do not focus on the subtleties? Or is it because we are too dense to really appreciate these subtleties?
And quite frankly, I have yet to come across a critique of Dravid's captaincy in all of the literature available since the WC debacle. Which dovetails back to my point - does our blind spot with regards to the soft skills get reflected in our cricketing approach?
Let me give you another reference point - Greg Chappell.
When you think about it, what Chappell says is not something that is out of the blue. Some of what he has said has been implemented by the Indian team at different points in time.
Chappell doesn't talk of high elbows or seam position. What Chappell talks of is flexibility, of smart batting, bowling and fielding... Ideas that are not rocket science.
But why has it taken a Chappell to articulate these ideas? From the entire pantheon of India's cricketing greats, why haven't these or similar ideas come forth?
Post a Comment