'Indian cricket in transition' - What transition?

Sourav Ganguly's statement after India's humiliating losses at Dhaka that Indian cricket was in a "transition period" deserves to be looked at in greater depth, primarily because he is way off the mark. A cursory glance at the various teams India has fielded in one-day internationals since the tour to Australia last season gives the impression that there have been a lot of changes to key personnel. However that is far from the truth.

When do we say a team is in "transition"? When there've been a lot of changes in the side over a period of time. When a team is in transition, it generally loses more than it wins, the losses are attributed to the absence of experienced personnel and the presence of new, untested and inexperienced players. Teams going through a transition period hope for better times ahead.

A classic example of this would be the Australian team of the 1980s. After being repeatedly humiliated by the West Indies and also losing the Ashes to England a number of times, Australian cricket was at a low. Kim Hughes resigned the captaincy midway during the series against West Indies in 1984-85. Allan Border took over a team of young and inexperienced players. Greats like Lillee, Marsh and Greg Chappell had all retired and Australia was rebuilding. Their first step in the rebuilding process was the 1987 World Cup victory. Then they thrashed England 4-0 in 1989 and the process of re-establishing themselves as a force to reckon with was underway. The culmination of their efforts was the 1995 series win in the West Indies and the 1999 World Cup victory. Now that is an example of a team in transition which reaches its goal.

In the current Indian one day side, it is obvious that at least six members are permanent. They are Ganguly, Tendulkar, Dravid, Robin Singh, Agarkar and Kumble. Agarkar has cemented his place as the second seamer when Srinath is available and as the first choice seamer when Srinath is not. Azharuddin and Jadeja were not part of the squad 'Down Under' but have been members of the sides which played South Africa in India, the Coca Cola Cup in Sharjah and the Asia Cup in Dhaka. Sunil Joshi too has more or less established himself as the second spinner. Nikhil Chopra rarely gets a game nowadays. If and when Srinath makes himself available for selection, he is guaranteed a place in the side.

So we now have ten players who are almost certainties in an Indian XI, leave alone a squad of 14. So the only spot in transition is the wicket-keeper's slot. This has rotated between MSK Prasad, Sameer Dighe, Nayan Mongia, Rahul Dravid & Saba Karim over the last six months. Who knows, by the time the next series comes around, we could see a different player donning the gloves!

So how does Ganguly term a side where consistently eight or nine members find themselves in the XI, a team in "transition"? If he means that the fringe places are in transition it is understandable. Certainly everyone agrees that India's Asia Cup bowling attack, if that is the right word for it, was very weak. Given that Agarkar, Kumble and Joshi have played a total of over 300 one-dayers between themselves, how would you term the attack inexperienced? The only weak link was the second seamer's slot where inexperienced bowlers like Kumaran and Bhandari were selected. Joshi and Chopra's illness before the crucial match against Pakistan forced the inclusion of Bhandari.

Ganguly has also defended his decision not to bowl either Robin Singh or himself in the game against Pakistan by saying that he did not think it would make a difference and that he wanted to use the regular bowlers. Yet it is worth wondering about why Tendulkar bowled his full quota when he was also a non-regular bowler. Surely, Tendulkar is not always expected to bowl his full quota. Whatever Ganguly's defence of his decision is, it is baffling why neither he and Robin Singh bowled at all, if not during the end of the innings, at least in the middle of the innings. The inexperience of the "regular" bowlers is no excuse for not trying out the various options available.

It would be good for Indian cricket if it was acknowledged that India's experienced and famed batting line-up failed miserably in the matches against Sri Lanka and Pakistan rather than blame the inexperience of the bowlers for the early exit from the Asia Cup.