John has, in his post, raised a pertinent question - How do they put 20000 runs to pasture gracefully?
I have put in a longish comment which I plan to elaborate on here.
India's immediate need is not its ODI team or its Twenty20 team. Our immediate needs are to find a couple of quality spinners who can take over the mantle from Anil Kumble and to find steady replacements for the greatest middle order the Indian team has had.
While the quality of what we will lose cannot be compensated,a move away from the super bats era to a more total-cricket era will be more than welcome.
India's strength in the longer form of the game is its bowling - the depth and the variety we possess is second to none.
If we can compliment this depth in bowling with a batting lineup that is steady, if not spectacular, and one that gives the bowling line up enough runs and enough time to take 20 wickets, our cricket will be well served in the near and medium term.
The trick is - how? How do we jettison what we have and bring in the untried and the untested and expect to maintain similar, if not the same, standards?
This is where the comment I made on John's blog comes into play. I reproduce it, in full.
John,
I think this senior junior thingie is the wrong debate - what has been evident in the Oz tour has been the acceptance of an horses for courses policy.
The presence of SRT or RD or SCG is required because of their experience - the been there done that thingie.
Now, of the three, SRT has been known to be the go to guy for all matters of issues cricketing - even when SCG or RD or MA were captains. He, therefore, lends himself well a s the obvious choice for the mentor role with the team.
RD and SCG do not bring the mentorship capacity to the table - what they have is their primary skills as batsmen and the baggage of being ex-India captains.
Do we need pure batsmen or batsmen bowlers in the team- there are enough candidates who can fill that role.
Do we need ex-India captains and their baggage and their ability to form alternate power centers?
If the GC experience has taught us anything, it is the fact that multiple power centers is detrimental to the team as a whole.
There will be cases when we may still need to play all three in the same team. Just that those cases may be few and far in between.
At the same time, pensioning them off is not necessarily a smart thing because, with the IPL money, if they decide to say good bye to Test Cricket also, we are in a deep hole as we do not have people who can readily slot into the role that RD and SG have played thus far.
I think it is more prudent to keep RD and SG in the fray, getting them to play the odd ODI over the next year or so, while utilizing their services in Test cricket as we groom their successors in the longer form of the game ( by having a policy of rotation - 2 seniors + 1 junior in the middle order always for the next 20 Tests).
Assuming we do have a rotation policy in place,we are giving the new kids enough time and latitude to find their feet in test cricket.
Not only will they have the luxury of fitting into their batting positions, they will have the luxury of playing under the shadow of two/three senior players - as good a safety net as any.
And there are 10 odd tests to assess their ability - an important factor so that we do not all come out feeling short changed.
Given age and ability, the policy can also be modified so that the person anointed to take Ganguly's place, for example, is given a greater number of opportunities right off the bat, assuming Ganguly is the first of the Fab 4 to retire.
Can it work? The proof of the pudding...
