I wasn't planning to write on anything until the World Cup got underway, but these two articles caused a change of mind.
Mukul Kesavan's article at CricInfo is bound to raise some hackles.
I cannot wait for his take on Team India.
This other article too is bound to create a flutter across the border, not so much for what is written in it as much as the writer of the article.
The one point that caught my eye in Bob Woolmer's article was this
The difference will be that the teams will have to play different type of cricket and be more attritional. If the bowlers cannot get used to those pitches, then that's a weakness they will have. The pitches will be the key. We all will be waiting to see what Andy Atkinson has done. The adaptation to the facilities will also be a key factor in this World cup.which dovetails nicely to my current pet peeve - the Men in Blue.
Rahul Dravid pushed for the selection of Virender Sehwag- super!! After all, it is the captain who has to lead the charge for his players.
Sehwag, in turn, made all the right noises about repaying his captains trust and the faith reposed in him - superer!!!
Sehwag, as a gesture of gratitude, plays another bone headed shot in a game where he had nothing to lose - and draws prompt support from his captain- superest!!!
So whats my problem?
My problem is, that by overtly and oh so very loudly proclaiming your support for a player, the captain can very easily fall in the trap of being forced to back the player irrespective of form or production.
And this can lead to the door being shut on another player who may be in form, or may be producing, or doing both. And this leads to discontent ( as if we haven't had our quota of that already) and possibly, groupism.
Drop the said player and the captain's credibility is on the line!!!
The other problem is - that by making noises to indicate that the said player will be slotted in the top three, the skipper is handicapping yourself of options - thus depriving oneself of that word so favored by the Team Management - flexibility.
We have been down this path before - the third test in South Africa is the most recent example. Its all fine and dandy to support a player in strife- captain's prerogative and all that. But can we be a little less vocal about it Rahul? Why paint yourself in a corner anyways? There are going to a whole lot of other battles to be fought, and won, between now and the end of the World Cup.
And who on God's green earth is "Joe Blogs".
Anyways, I digress.
The reason I started beating on the keyboard is because of what Bob Woolmer had written in his article- more specifically his assessment of the wickets in the Carib.
On January 31, 2007, I had written
10. India's batting and the inability to adapt quickly ?The other point of interest is that Bob Woolmer expects attritional cricket. If that is indeed the case then Cuttuck and not Vizag becomes the blue print for an Indian win and probable sustained run in the WC.
At Chennai, the Indian middle and lower middle order crumbled, losing 7/35. At Cuttuck, the top order lost its way, losing 7/90. Two different wickets, slightly different batting conditions, and the Indians unraveled. Given that the some of the wickets in the West Indies are being newly laid, and some of the wickets are being used for the Carib domestic season, what will be the nature of the wickets and how quickly will the Indians adapt to the change?
( India failed to adapt quickly enough at Abu Dhabi, West Indies, Malaysia, India and South Africa on different conditions. How they do in the West Indies hinges on how quickly the can revise game plans depending on the conditions).
