The Indian team finally managed to salvage some pride towards the
end of their Caribbean tour by winning the truncated limited
overs series.
Given the past record - on three previous tours, the Indians had
won just two and lost ten one-day internationals - it can be
rated as a commendable achievement. Too much should not be made
of the weakness of the opposition, for even when their decline
was palpable in 1997, the home team still took the one-day series
by three matches to one.
Indeed, there was something positive about the Indian victory.
The methodical selection of the replacements made for a nicelybalanced outfit with an ideal blend of youth and experience. The
youth certainly did their bit in raising the fielding standards
while the experience came in handy when it mattered most.
There is little doubt that the inclusion of Dinesh Mongia,
Virender Sehwag, Ajit Agarkar, Tinu Yohannan, Yuvraj Singh and
Mohammad Kaif - none of whom played in the Tests strengthened
the team for the one dayers and gave it the cutting edge. Most,
if not all of them, should be members of the World Cup squad some
eight months later and the experience gained in the West Indies
limited as it was will stand the youngsters in very good
stead.
The induction of youth, however, should not mean that experience
should be given the cold shoulder and in this regard a couple of
points deserve to be touched upon.
 © CricInfo
|
I was never happy with the selection of Rahul Dravid as
wicketkeeper. Either his batting or his work behind the stumps is
bound to suffer as was evident during the three matches - and
this is something the country can ill afford. As I have pointed
out, Dravid is still very much one of our leading batsmen
yes, even in the limited overs game and he should be allowed
to concentrate on his batting.
It must not be forgotten that he was the leading run-getter in
the last World Cup and it would be a folly to relegate him to the
level of a fringe player in South Africa early next year. He must
have the confidence that the team still needs him to get some
quick runs, something he can achieve through judiciously placed
singles and twos rather than big hits.
He must be handled with respect, based upon his record and
reputation, and not treated as someone who can only retain his
place in the squad if he can also keep wickets. As I have already
pointed out in a previous column, this policy is also unfair to
Ajay Ratra, besides being detrimental to the team's interests.
Another senior cricketer under pressure is obviously Venkatsai
Laxman. As the man in form he was the leading run-getter in
the Test series he should have been an automatic selection
for the one-dayers. Instead, he was dropped to accommodate a
younger cricketer and played only in the fourth one-dayer when
Saachin Tendulkar was injured.
Encouraging youth is commendable but this should not be done at
the expense of a in-form senior cricketer. A youngster should be
made to earn his place in the side, not take the slot for
granted.
Also, what was Sachin Tendulkar doing batting at No 4 in the
final game? I thought we were given to understand clearly by the
team management that he would bat at this position only when
India were chasing a target and he would open the innings in case
India batted first.
Tendulkar in fact did go in at No 4 in the third one-dayer when
India were chasing. As Tendulkar is quoted to have said after the
decider, "Sourav asked me if I would like to bat at No 4 and I
said okay."
After making the policy statement public, why did the team
management so quickly go back on it? Perhaps it did not make much
difference to the result or to Tendulkar's reputation but it does
speak poorly about the lack of planning and resolve. Once a
tactical decision has been taken, it should be tried out for some
matches before there can be any rethinking on the strategy to be
evolved.
Overall, the tour was one that evoked mixed feelings. Losing the
Test series to opposition that was not exactly formidable and
after taking the lead - must be termed as a disappointment.
Against that, the victory in the limited overs series came as a
pleasant surprise.
Individually too, the end of the tour report card is pretty much
up and down. The middle-order batting did live up to its
reputation and the promise of Wasim Jaffer holds out encouraging
prospects. Shiv Sundar Das, considering his record and technique,
was a major disappointment and it can only be hoped that the
gifted youngster recovers his form and composure soon and comes
off on the England tour
The bowling was a major problem on the eve of the tour and it
remains a problem, particularly with Srinath having retired from
Test cricket. Will four bowlers whatever the composition
be enough to win the Test series in England? Is there enough
ammunition in the bowling to win the one-day tri-series involving
England and Sri Lanka? Given their dismal overseas record, can
the two main bowlers Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh spin out the
opposition?
 © CricInfo
|
Amidst these question marks, the one encouraging aspect of the
tour was the discovery of Ajay Ratra. Both in front and behind
the stumps, the young Haryana wicketkeeper did exhibit enough
skill and guts to show that he could finally solve India's longstanding problem in this specialised field. His being discarded
for the one-day series was a mistake which one hopes will be
rectified soon.