Popular: IPL 2012 | Kirti Azad | ICC rankings | Nick Knight

Series

	Series


England v West Indies
Sri Lanka v Pakistan
County Cricket
Indian Premier League
ICC Intercontinental Cup
More current and future series

Countries

	Countries


Australia	Afghanistan	Other Countries
Bangladesh	Canada	Women's Cricket
England	Ireland	ICC
India	Kenya	Beyond the Test World
New Zealand	Netherlands
Pakistan	Scotland
South Africa	USA
Sri Lanka
West Indies
Zimbabwe

Live Scores

	Live Scores

Fixtures

	Fixtures

Fixtures Home

Live Coverage

Current and Future Tours

International Calendar

Results

	Results

The strange case of Rahul Dravid

Dravid being dropped is another incoherent decision from a selection panel known for them

Sambit Bal

October 29, 2007

Comments: 102 | Text size: A | A

Sure the likes of Dravid, Ganguly and Tendulkar need to be phased out, but the transition needs to be planned with care © AFP

Enlarge

Rahul Dravid must wonder if he didn't bring it upon himself. He did two things distinctly un-Indian. When he was captain, he didn't give himself a fixed position at the top of the order. As India's most consistent batsman he could have had the No. 3 position by right, but he chose to bat at five, sometimes even six - positions where consistent scores are least likely - because he wanted his stroke-makers to get more overs. He didn't see it as a sacrifice but a decision taken in the best interest of the team and with an eye towards the development of young players.

Two, he gave up the captaincy when he could have had it for another year at least. This was a decision he made more for his own sake. When he was re-appointed captain after the World Cup disaster, Dravid had laid out his expectations and given himself a time allowance. Despite the Test-series victory in England and the closeness of the one-day series, he perhaps didn't see Indian cricket moving in the direction he would have liked it to head in. There was little progress on the administrative front: the search for a coach had gone nowhere, the post of the administrative manager continued to be a dole, and there was no sign of a media manager being appointed. Dealing with what went on on the field was one thing, but Dravid had no stomach for what went on off it. It could be termed a weakness: captaining India requires a thick skin, a certain indifference to externals, which Dravid lacked and couldn't acquire.

However, these decisions merely confirmed what we have known about Dravid the cricketer and the man. They were born of earnestness, commitment to Indian cricket, and a clear idea about his priorities. Giving up the captaincy meant giving up certain privileges - and as it transpired, even his place in the side - but once his heart was not in it, he preferred not to hold on to it for the wrong reasons. That's the essence of the man. Sanjay Manjrekar described him as the most selfless Indian cricketer of the last decade with good reason.

Of all cricketers Dravid could be expected to go before being pushed. It's the toughest decision for a sportsperson, but it was assumed that Dravid, a player with a keen sense of the history of the game, and an awareness of life outside the bubble of cricket, would know when the time came. And it was also thought that he of all his contemporaries would last longest, for his game was least touched by time.

Yes, his Test form has dipped. It's rare for him to go two series without making a serious contribution. Between 2000 and 2006, he had a pivotal role in every major Indian Test win, but since his two masterpieces on a difficult pitch in Jamaica last year, he hasn't been the formidable batsman the world has known him to be. Perhaps the captaincy was beginning to weigh on him.

Dravid would be the first to agree that the selection process needs to be insulated from sentiments and the cult of individual. Instead it should be based on cold logic and should have an eye on the future. As captain he supported some of the tough decisions the previous selection committee took, and it included dropping Sourav Ganguly, his predecessor and an iconic figure in Indian cricket. Dravid, more than anyone else, understands and appreciates the significance of building for the future. But the question that must be asked is: what is the basis for not picking Dravid?

All we have got so far is a series of incoherent, and sometimes contradictory, statements from Dilip Vengsarkar, the chairman of selectors. In fact, it has been a feature of his reign.

Is this the beginning of a rotation policy? No, there isn't a need to rotate players; we must pick the best team every time. Is this the end of the road for Dravid, then? No, he is a great player and he will surely make a comeback. Is this, then, a selection purely on current form? Yes, form and fitness are important in this form of the game. Dravid must prove both playing for his state. So, there we have it now. Dravid needs to prove both his fitness and form in a four-day Ranji Trophy match if he is to force his way back into the one-day team.

With the previous selection committee, we knew what the vision was - whether right or wrong was moot. Vengsarkar began his tenure by reversing the push towards youth - "Where is the bench strength?" was an early famous quote - but was last heard gushing about youth in the wake of India's Twenty20 success. Would the selectors have chosen a young team for the World Twenty20 if Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly hadn't withdrawn by themselves? The more we see of it, this looks like a committee that is happy to change its course with the tide.

Some of its decisions have been truly baffling, and none more than those to do with Virender Sehwag, who paid for a prolonged bad run in one-day cricket with his place in the team in Tests, a form in which his record has been outstanding. In fact, he wasn't even dropped from the one-day squad to start with, and then made his comeback via Twenty20 cricket.

Dravid now needs to prove both his fitness and form in a four-day Ranji Trophy match if he is to force his way back into the one-day team

The team for the first two one-dayers has five openers, none of them, apart from Tendulkar, capable of being a mid-innings builder. And it's been clear for a while that Tendulkar doesn't want to bat down the order. No successful one-day team in the history of cricket has been built around dashers: from Larry Gomes to Michael Bevan to Damien Martyn to Michael Hussey, every successful side has had an accomplished accumulator in the middle. If we look around today, Sri Lanka have Mahela Jayawardene; South Africa, Jacques Kallis; and Pakistan, Younis Khan and Mohammed Yousuf. And England are beginning to realise just how valuable Ian Bell is.

It's no one's case that India must plan their one-day future around Dravid. In fact, they must start looking beyond him and Tendulkar and Ganguly. But the transition must be planned with thought and care. When Dravid plays well, he lends balance to the team. When he goes, he must be replaced with someone who is suited to playing his role.

Selection is not about whims and convenience. And it is not always about the immediate. Strong decisions deserve support. But they have to be made with the right and clear intentions.

Sambit Bal is the editor of Cricinfo

Feeds: Sambit Bal

Comments: 102

More in Opinion by Sambit Bal

All articles by this writer »

Your regular, everyday superstar | The Woolf report is well-meaning but naïve | Goodbye to India's batting greats | Festive Sydney a welcome change for India | Can Kumble set a moral benchmark?

Posted by Rohan_Shastri on (November 04 2007, 20:26 PM GMT)

Akshayindia .... give us a break. Are you really comparing Ganguly's case to Dravid's?! Ganguly had been consistently failing for matches on end (though his own memory seemed only to get him to admit to six months). Besides if you were to do a poll regarding India's most selfless cricketer and India's most SELFISH - you'd find Dravid as the former and Ganguly as the latter. One of them gave up Captaincy, the other tried desperately to cling on. One plays for the team, the other for himself. One is willing to go up and down the order to accomodate the situation, the other used his position of authority to shovel every middle order player up the order to open (to safeguard his own middle order slot), played mind games with Laxman, feigned injuries on green tops. One was not the greatest Captain admitedly, but won us series in WI and England, and the other though he couldn't quite do that, won us 9 Tests against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. One thing -Ganguly knew how to blow his own trumpet!

Posted by ari2007 on (November 04 2007, 06:22 AM GMT)

Continuing from my earlier submission....I think a team should be selected in ODI's based on the needs of the respective batting slot and who best fits in to that role...Opening Slot need is to be able to provide stability and attack .At present the pool has 4 players Ganguly,Tendulkar,Sehwag and Gambhir rotate and play only 2 of them at any given point of time....No.3 should be a player who is good not only in attack but also at defence so ideally youngsters like Rohit Sharma ,BadriNath and Raina along with Dravid should be kept in the mix and let these players grow in that role..No.4 without a trace of doubt should be Yuvraj as he is the one who might serve Indian Cricket for 8-10 years,No.5,6 and 7 should be power hitters and players with the ability to close out games and multi faceted cricketers having great fielding ability which give the team the option of either going in with a 7-4 or 6-5 combo hence players like Uthappa,Dhoni,Monoj Tiwari,Irfan Pathan seem the best fits now.

Posted by ari2007 on (November 04 2007, 06:07 AM GMT)

With regards to Selection of a Team there would always be some great who would have to miss out when the team has to go thru' a transition phase...remember the days when Manjrekar and Siddhu were eased out rather shown the door and we had Dravid and Ganguly coming thru' similarly Shastri and Vengsarkar were phased out and replaced by Kambli and Jadeja....Selection should follow logic and certain checklists - How long would player A serve the country and to a level of atleast 80% of his peak ability if he is an experienced player and identifying the best players for the respective slots particularly batting order and replace the experienced ones....With a vision to 2011 the only senior who seems a certainty is Sachin Tendulkar as even if he bats at 70%of his ability he would remain a match winner.Another factor to be considered Tendulkar should not be played in more than 20 ODI's in a year that too only the Marquee Series/Championships so that his international career can be prolonged

Posted by anjanluthra on (November 04 2007, 00:17 AM GMT)

Dropping dravid is ridiculous! The man plays with elegance and class. His value to the indian cricket team is huge. Who in the current can come in, say if india are 20 for 3 on a seeming/swinging wicket and play with mental and technical strength? No offense to Uthappa, he is a great player, but i dont see him having the mental capacity to be able to handle brett lee/bracken/johnson steeming in on a bowler friendly pitch when india are struggling for runs and need a partnership! The first person that comes to mind is Rahuld Dravid! Dravid is a player with expereince and extreme capability of assessing the situation and playing towards it...just cast your minds back to the oval test match...when he played a crucial innings, which took up valuable and was one of the major turning points of the match! I do not understand Vengsarkar descision. What do u guys think?

Posted by Deniro on (November 03 2007, 20:50 PM GMT)

ODI's aside let's not forget that Test Cricket is not always about winning the toss and batting 1st on a flat track for the first three days - that is why we love it so much - but about batting in challenging conditions on challenging surfaces. Who else in world Cricket is better equipped [than Rahul Dravid] to do that consistently for his team? No-one for my mind. The Indian selectors, in all due respect, are mad!

Posted by elevenxperts on (November 03 2007, 06:09 AM GMT)

Yes It is too harsh on the part of Selectors, Who Mohinder Amarnath Once called, a bunch of jokers. (If I am not wrong). Dravid is a kind of batsman who deserve to be in Indian team, because he is a player of caliber and selflessness. He never cared about his own personal milestones, As lot of other players did ( I don't want to name them but people should know). He had a bad series against Australia is understandable but we you look back at the series, in some of them even the so called in-form batsmen where out for cheap too. He got out trying to score faster even though he knew that he need to score runs in order to prove his form to those jokers, but he still went for his shots and in process got himself out cheaply. If it is called being out of form then I am sorry to say half of the Indian team is OUT OF FORM. MR VENGSARKAR PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR WHOLE TEAM DONT JUST MAKE ANYBODY A SCAPEGOAT TO SHOW THAT YOU ARE DOING YOUR JOB.

Posted by lucifer17 on (November 03 2007, 01:05 AM GMT)

I completely agree with akshayindia and personally a great fan of Sourav Ganguly. That was scandelous. But because of that mistake,the Indian cricket suffered. So just to justify that we dont need to make another scapegoat of a great player and push the team down the drain. And as for the comments by cric-fan i would like to remind all of Dravid's innings like 74(93) vs South Africa 26June2007, 92(63) vs England 24Aug2007, 56(61) vs England 27Aug2007, 24(17) vs England 2Sep2007, 35(37) vs 5Sep2007, 54(35) vs WI 21Jan2007, 57(67) vs WI 27Jan2007. I am no expert but the strike rate looks fantastic to me. Come on guys, with Rahul Dravid and Yuvraj Singh we can build the on of the greatest middle order. Rahul Dravid was by no means the gratest captain but definitely a superb middle order batsman, so let him be. By the way if fitness is the criteria, just think about this: Romesh Powar!!! And if they are talking about form, Viender Sehwag to replace Dravid!!! In some dreamland, maybe Yes.

Posted by Urja on (November 02 2007, 20:43 PM GMT)

Why so much hoopla about dropping dravid? Remember if he had not resigned as a team captain he would have definately been in and then his below par performance against Australia would have gone unnoticed irrespective of the series outcome.I strongly feel this; as this has been Indian Cricket for the years.A person is removed from the captaincy & then from the team afterwords. Dravid chose to step down on his own & then lost the place in team. Make no mistakes all the three formats are absolutely different & require different levels of mental toughness & a carry on nature. Dravid is not fitting in any of these frames. I myself; am a big fan of Dravid & hence I do care for him;so in a way this break hopefully builds the same level of confidence in him.

Posted by Mohammad.Ashraful on (November 02 2007, 20:38 PM GMT)

Cricket certainly is a game of understanding and planning. To those who have been saying that the exclusion of Dravid was the correct and time-demanding decision, needed to be taken, I can't help but say that they don't understand the game. They watch the game for the sake of watching and want their teams to win every time but are found dumb if asked what measures should be taken to achieve the feat. Rahul Dravid is by far the best and most selfless player India have ever produced. He is to me even a more matured player than Tendulkar in terms of coping up with diverse environment and game condition. He is a kind of player who will score the 2nd fastest 50*(21) for india in ODI(against New Zealand) or hit 92* off 67 (against England), on the other hand he will walk in to the crease at 20 for 3 and see off 30 odd overs on numerous occasions. To me he is the most seasoned ODI player for India. Whatever plans the Indian Selectors have must be revolving around Dravid and not away from him.

Posted by JerseyGuys on (November 02 2007, 15:00 PM GMT)

I agree with the author. First of all Dravid shouldn't have been dropped... he should have been given a run at No. 3 position for the role of accumulator that he does so well. Even if selectors wanted to drop him, it should have been like for like replacement. Sehwag for Dravid does not make any sense!!! All Pakistan has to do is to get our three wickets in first 10 overs. If it is 30/3 then India will be bundled for less than 200. They don't have anyone like Dravid who can stablize the innings.

Have India's selectors been unfair to Dravid?

| Read all 102 comments

Comments have now been closed for this article

Top

Feedback

Sambit Bal

Editor Sambit Bal took to journalism at the age of 19 after realising that he wasn't fit for anything else, and to cricket journalism 14 years later when it dawned on him that it provided the perfect excuse to watch cricket in the office. Among other things he has bowled legspin, occasionally landing the ball in front of the batsman; laid out the comics page of a newspaper; covered crime, urban development and politics; and edited Gentleman, a monthly features magazine. He joined Wisden in 2001 and edited Wisden Asia Cricket and Cricinfo Magazine. He still spends his spare time watching cricket.

View all articles »