A delicate situation that calls for a bold approach
The phrase commonly known in cricketing circles is "going through a bad patch." Or is it a lean trot
Partab Ramchand
28-Jun-2001
The phrase commonly known in cricketing circles is "going through a
bad patch." Or is it a lean trot? Every great cricketer from WG Grace
onwards has experienced it. These are the times when nothing goes
right for a batsman. If he makes a good shot, the ball goes straight
to a fielder. If he tries to be aggressive, it turns out to his
disadvantage. More often than not, he is guilty of unwise shot
selection and is generally in a rut. Mentally he is a zero, he has
lost confidence, there is no footwork and the hand to eye coordination is nil. These are the times when the bowlers, looking upon
him as a rabbit, rub their hands in glee at his appearance at the
crease. Already they are looking beyond him to the next batsman.
And then suddenly the scene undergoes a metamorphosis. The hunter all
at once becomes the hunted. And it could take just one innings. That
single outing raises the confidence level all over again. Mentally he
becomes stronger and as if by a miracle the footwork and the hand to
eye co-ordination is back. Suddenly everything the batsman tries comes
off in spades and the bowlers and the fielders are reduced to obliging
slaves.
Sourav Ganguly is but the latest in the long line of batsmen in the
long history of the game to have undergone this feeling. In the past
few months, through Tests and one day internationals, nothing went
right for him. Yes, we all are aware of the phrase, "Form is
temporary, class is permanent." And Ganguly had class written all
over him. A perfect blend of power and elegance had transformed him
into one of the leading batsmen in the world and one of the `big
three' of Indian batsmanship. So then why was he failing time and
again? After all, for any batsman, there is a limit and Ganguly seemed
to have exceeded this by repeated failures. His legion of fans were
getting impatient. Ganguly himself was getting frustrated. When would
his run drought end?
The selection committee - or the team management on a tour - is
generally loath to dropping someone who is obviously a class
performer, who is a regular, even if he continues to fail. And the
situation becomes even more problematic and delicate if the player
continuing to fail is also the captain. It is not easy for the team
management to suggest to the captain that he should opt out because he
is a passenger, because his form (or lack of it) is having a
demoralising effect on the rest of the side. Nor is it always easy for
a captain to offer himself as a sacrificial lamb. After all, it could
send out the wrong signals that he is not a fighter.
Of course it is not that a captain has not dropped himself due to lack
of form. One remembers the decision taken by Mike Denness on the tour
of Australia in 1974-75. After scoring 65 runs from six innings and
being plainly in distress against Lillee, Thomson and Walker, the
England captain dropped himself for one Test. In the long run it
proved to be a correct decision for his subsequent scores in the
series were 51, 14 and 188 and he had the satisfaction of leading his
team to an unexpected victory in the final Test.
In Indian cricket however, the practice of the captain opting out of
the team due to lack of form has generally been frowned upon. The
trend was probably set by `Vizzy' who despite scoring just 33 runs
from six innings at an average of 8.25 in the 1936 series against
England stayed on as captain despite opposition from certain members
of the team. Ten years later, the senior Nawab of Pataudi made just 55
runs from five innings at an average of 11.00 but there were no
murmurs. For one thing, Pataudi was a classy batsman, which he proved
by scoring 981 runs in first class games, finishing third in the
averages behind Vijay Merchant and Vijay Hazare.
The trend not to disturb an Indian captain who is on a lean trot with
the bat has continued even in the post-maharajah days. Captains from
Ramchand to Contractor, MAK Pataudi to Gavaskar, Vengsarkar to
Azharuddin all kept their jobs despite a wretched performance - albeit
only for a period - with the bat. Neither the selection committee nor
the team management has been forthright enough to take such a
decision. The captain too has preferred to play on, waiting perhaps
for his luck to change for the better. But it is quite possible that
this obstinate approach might have a damaging influence on both the
individual and the team.
In the final analysis, it can be said that any move by the selection
committee, the tour management or the captain himself to play without
a leader who is going through a bad patch would be a bold one. The
captain is generally among the leading players in the side, who has
been a regular in the team for some time. When such a decision, on the
face of it quite a drastic one, should be taken and what effect it
could have on both the individual and the team are factors that have
to be considered seriously. One wonders whether Ganguly came near to
opting out before making the timely 85 against Zimbabwe on Wednesday.
Now he, the rest of the team and millions of Indian cricket fans the
world over can only wish his lean trot is over and we can now hope to
see Ganguly, the elegant swashbuckler in full flow again.