Cricket has become part of Indian foreign policy
As I write this, there is still no news whether India will play in the Asian Test Championship and I am frankly at a total loss for words
Omar Kureishi
22-Aug-2001
As I write this, there is still no news whether India will play in the
Asian Test Championship and I am frankly at a total loss for words. Is
the Indian government trying to get in the Guinness Book of Records
for indecisiveness?
I don't think anyone of us is waiting on tenterhooks because it's not
really such a big deal. It is not, as if, India was the world
champion. In fact, it is a team that gives the impression that it is
in disarray if body-language of players in Galle is anything to go by.
Perhaps, this could be one of the reasons why the Indian government is
reluctant to allow its team to play at Lahore.
India lost the first Test match against Sri Lanka without putting up
even a semblance of a fight. India may well bounce back in the
remaining two Test but at Galle it looked all at sea, almost literally
since the sea was so close to the ground. Without Sachin Tendulkar and
Vangipurappu Laxman, the batting lacked substance, not helped by the
fact that the captain is in such poor form.
Saurav Ganguly does not give the impression that he is in complete
charge. He seems distracted, mindful that the knives are out for him.
But this is something that the Indian cricket board will have to sort
out. Not for the first time in the subcontinent has the captaincy
become a bone of contention and not for the first time has a team
suffered because of it. But the Indian government has changed the goal
posts so often that nothing can be taken for granted.
We are now told that it is not the Sports Ministry that has to decide
but the External Affairs Ministry. Thus the game of cricket has become
a part of foreign policy. If the Indian government does not want its
cricket team to play against Pakistan, let it say so, bluntly and up
front and not resort to sophistry or a jugglery of words. We will all
know where we stand. It is clear that the Asian Test Championship will
go ahead with or without India.
So much fuss is being made about Don Bradman's dream team including
the allegation by Sunil Gavaskar that the team is a fake. There is a
need to put matters in perspective. Bradman was the greatest batsman
the game has ever known. But we can't really invest his every word as
if it is the last word. He had, of course, every right to select his
dream team as you and I have the right. It is obvious that Bradman
would be influenced in his selection by the players with whom he
played and thus the selection of Arthur Morris, Don Tallon, Ray
Lindwall and Bill O'Reilly none of whom figure in Wisden's cricketers
of the millennium. Thus there is no Viv Richards or Shane Warne.
I would have thought that Bradman would have found a place for Steve
Waugh. Others who would have been automatic selections if I was
picking a dream team would have been Waseem Akram Malcolm Marshall,
either Allan Knott or Wasim Bari as wicket-keeper and Gordon Greenidge
and either Gavaskar or Len Hutton to open the innings.
I think too that Bradman should have shown a bigness of heart and
spared a thought for Harold Larwood, the one bowler who made Bradman
seem human. Albeit using the tactics of body line, tactics that were
not illegal but were unethical according to the moral standards of
those days. Mark you, Larwood never reached the speed of Jeff Thomson
or Brett Lee.
Again, because of deadline constraints, one does not know how the
Headingley Test match will end though, given that it has been much
affected by rain, it could be a draw and this would mean that England
would have avoided a whitewash. But this Test match has shown how much
influence a captain can have on a team. Australia felt the absence of
Steve Waugh particularly when the bowlers were all over the place in
England's first innings. All except Glenn McGrath who must surely be
the best bowler in the game. Indeed, take away McGrath from the
Australian attack and the two teams would seem better balanced.
England felt the presence of Nasser Hussain, back after injury.
Making a debut for Australia was Simon Katich, the first batsman to
get a Test cap in three years. This is significant and may be a vital
clue in Australia's success. They play with a settled side and don't
believe in a revolving-door selection policy. Nor is a Test cap a
giveaway item like a ball point pen or a key chain. A Test cap has to
be earned the hard way. It is, after all, the highest honour that a
cricketer earns.
The other thing that the Australians do not do and that is to change a
winning combination. There must have been pressure to drop Ricky
Ponting after his repeated failures. But Australia kept faith in him
and he finally delivered. Australia has also persevered with Brett Lee
though Damien Fleming has better credentials but so long as Australia
is winning, Lee will be persisted with because Australia is looking to
the future, for the day that must come when they will be without
McGrath.
Some observations about the commentary of the India-Sri Lanka match. I
have not met Navjot Sidhu and therefore do not know whether his normal
speech is as gung-ho as his commentary and whether he uses such
expressions as "anxious like a wet hen" in conversation.
I was a little alarmed by Ravi Shastri's comment that since it was
Test cricket there seemed no harm in physically injuring the
opponents' players or words to that effect. Even if one feels that
way, I would not want to admit it openly. It makes cricket less and
less a game and more a gladiatorial contest, which it probably is but
we should keep up appearances.