Move Over, Supreme Court—It’s Time for the Shardul Thakur Verdict

The world is spiraling with critical choices: the Federal Reserve's rate cuts, whether Trump will finally make up his mind on Iran. and pending supreme court decisions. But let's be honest, these fade next to the real question haunting humanity: will Gambhir and Gill pick Shardul Thakur over Nitish Kumar Reddy for the England versus India Test series? World peace can wait. Our collective sanity, and perhaps the universe itself, hangs on this decision.

Picking Shardul Thakur isn’t just a clever choice; it’s like signing up for an insurance policy with pennies for premiums and payouts that could bankroll entire nations. This is the man who charges in with the ball and bats like a warrior, turning desperate situations into tales of glory. In Brisbane 2021, he smashed a defiant innings and tore through Australia’s lineup with a spell that left their batsmen short on their own turf. At The Oval, the same year, he blasted a fearless knock to flip the game and snagged key wickets to keep England’s hopes in the dust. Choosing Shardul is India banking on an honest trier who transforms tight corners into epic triumphs, proving he’s the heartbeat of victory with heroics that ring through cricket’s sacred arenas.

Nitish Kumar Reddy is a batting promise, no question, with a flair for crafting elegant innings that lights up the stadium. His century at Melbourne last year was as heartwarming as it was stunning, showcasing a talent destined for greatness. Yet, when it comes to the role of a wicket-taking allrounder, his bowling feels more like an afterthought . His overs are a handy bonus, but banking on him to consistently take wickets seems wishful given his recent performances. If you’re picking Nitish, it’s for his batting artistry, not for spearheading the bowling attack.

I’m not brimming with confidence that Gambhir will see the light and pick Lord Shardul. If the past is any guide, we’re more likely to see a selection that failed so elaborately in Australia. Why was Shardul not winning us a Test or two in Australia. What hurt was that no one even asked that question and Konstas came and rattled us with his irreverent batting.  

Pick Lord Shardul. Because when the world is wobbling, you need a man who can steady it with honesty, self belief, willpower and a bit of magic.

Cummins' Australia are here to win

 Australia don't seem to be here to complain about the pitches. It would not be entirely appropriate to count Ian Healy's comments on "fair pitches" to reflect the Australian Team's views.

Test matches in India do seem to get over sooner than they used to in years past. That trend in unlikely to change. India is keen to assert it's right to make pitches that spin from day one, even if it leads to 2 and 3 day Tests.

Australia are a proud team that has lost 2 consecutive series at home to India. They've come here to win. India on the other hand are not as strong a batting side compared to a few years ago, even at home. Pant's unfortunate injury is a big blow. He can't be replaced.

Australia will rely on pace and Lyon. They seem equipped match India's bowlers in intensity and skill. And Cummins and the fast men have the capacity to remove the pitch factor from the equation

This will be Cummins' opportunity to embrace greatness. Some contests rise above factors such as skill, techniques and conditions. Some contests go to teams that just want to win more desperately. England have shown the way on how such wins can be engineered.

The era of Root, Kohli and Williamson as captains is over. Babar's leadership is in crisis of sorts; having lost home series' to Australia and England and the inability to beat New Zealand. There is a buzz around Cummins' captaincy. He would love to start the upcoming Ashes series with a win of his own in India and Stoke's equal.

It's been a while since India have talked about the desire to win. The "we follow a process" language has crept back in. I am sticking my head out and predicting an Australia win by 2 Tests with Labuschagne doing a Damien Martyn from the 2005 series.

India's Cricketing Identity

Sport, often, has a way of elevating itself beyond the imagination of the most ardent fans. Sport can inspire people to great feats and define teams and nations by the actions of the sportspeople.

Jessie Owens discredited Hitler’s theory of white supremacy in his backyard by winning four Olympic medals. This despite Owens himself not having the freedom to exercise his own rights at home in the USA. We also remember Lutz Long his vanquished German opponent who graciously accepted defeat and much to the Chancellor’s discomfiture boldly congratulated Owens.

We know of Smith and Carlos of the 1968 Mexico Olympics who raised their fists in salute to the civil rights movement in the United States. The courage of the Australian athlete, Peter Norman, who stood in solidarity is etched in sport lore. He dealt with the ostracism at home by his racist administration with great dignity and achieved great honor across the world rising above the pettiness of his countrymen. In time, the rest of Australia came to his point of view.  

Many more such stories abound of courage by Indian cricketers such as Lala Amarnath, CK Nayudu, Vengsarkar and others. These players defied authorities and inspired both their teams and the people of their country. There is no greater honor than representing one’s country at the global stage to most sportspeople. And such honor to represent means that the conduct of the sportspeople reflects on the country and its people. The way a sports team or a sports person plays his sport representing his nation says a lot about the country itself to outsiders even in this day and age of the internet. In our recent memory, we’ve seen many a downfall from Ben Johnson (Canada) to the recent Russian doping scandal that led to shame for the country.

India has been emerging recently as a strong sporting nation with medals in Olympics and Commonwealth games. India’s athletes are moving up the sporting ladder with creditable displays in sports ranging from track and field events to badminton, boxing and the like. It’s no longer an anomaly to see an athlete from India contend for gold.  As an emerging sporting nation, the world’s eyes are on India. The world watches because India is a giant, raucous democracy and its growth inspires many other fledgling nations who are also on the same path. Across the border from India is China. A country with its authoritarian government has already made its mark in world athletics. Where India goes next and how it gets there is of enormous interest to others.

It is in this context that one must evaluate the recent events on the cricket field where Deepti Sharma ran out Charlotte Dean at the non-striker’s end in an inconsequential game to win it. The series was already won. This game could have gone either way, and India had the upper hand. England had to get another 15 or so runs with only a wicket in hand, though they had plenty of overs to get them in. As such, Indian bowlers had plenty of opportunity to win the game. The game was thus tantalizingly poised. In such a situation, India chose to run out the non-striker denying the public what I consider a proper cricket outcome.

A lot of ink has been spilled, name calling, accusations of deceit and cheating have been traded between former and current cricketers, journalists, twitteratti and trolls. Most have staked out their positions and taken sides. What’s striking is that almost all the Indian elite – cricketers and commentators – have defended this action as an appropriate tit for the runner’s tat of frequently leaving the crease early. Many have cited rules and breaking of rules and bowlers being put in uncomfortable positions. Some have gone to the extent of citing culture and colonialism and suggesting this as a form of defiance and rebellion.

However, the context of the game is important and India’s reputation as a sporting nation is at stake. Deepti Sharma didn’t run out a non-striker in the middle of a game. It wasn’t just any other run-out. It was done to end the game. It was done to deny Charlotte Dean, a tailender, the opportunity to script a story book finish and perhaps begin another legend. Sports thrives on these types of heroic stories. Its great for the growth of sports and would have inspired many more women perhaps to take up cricket. On the other hand, had Deepti or another Indian bowler got the last wicket, Indian girls would have been equally proud of the sporting accomplishment of their team and would have been equally inspired. By choosing not to fight the good fight against an England player bending the rules by leaving the crease, Deepti chose the easy way out. She signaled to others that she didn’t have the stomach for a good fight. That she and her team-mates didn't have one more heroic effort in them to pry out the last wicket. That they were simply content to win a game with minimal effort. And that winning at all costs was very important because that's what they deserved.

Imagine if Greg Matthews had run Maninder Singh or Ravi Shastri out in the amazing Madras (now Chennai) test that ended in a tie. Imagine if he had done it the very last over before Shastri scored the single to secure the tie. How sad would it have been to the public to have been denied that story book ending? Does it really matter who does this? India or someone else? Imagine if Abey Kuruvilla was done in by the great Kapil Dev in that epic Ranji Trophy final between Bombay (now Mumbai) and Haryana. And more recently if Rishab Pant was cut down at Gabba in this manner. Now imagine if this sort of running out non-strikers becomes a regular feature. How many great finishes would the sport lose?

By staking out the position, Indian cricket and many supporters have on this issue, they are being extremely short-sighted. They want to show a middle finger to the rest of the world that talks about spirit of the game and fairness. They also point to everyone else's past mistakes to justify this. The reality though is that it suggests a nation bitter at its place in the cricketing world. Its perhaps a larger reflection of a disappointed and angry nation that’s upset that China and others are leaving it behind while its potential is being wasted away. It’s the act of a bitter team that feels entitled to win but is unable to. India wasn’t losing because Dean was sneaking a few inches. India hadn’t lost the game yet, but it was clear it had lost the will to fight.  

The larger picture though is the brand of sport India wants to play. This isn’t an enjoyable brand of any sport, let alone cricket. Taking the fun out of a sporting context simply to win at all costs is going to reduce cricket to a farce. India has to reckon with its cricketing identity. It sits on the largest talent pool in the world. This is not how its going to gain the world’s respect. There’s still time to put the genie back in the bottle. India needs to stop resorting to these tactics. Captains, commentators and others need to come out and ask difficult questions. This isn’t a question of whether a player was following rules. This isn't Deepti Sharma or Ashwin's cross to bear, but that of a culture of cricket being developed in India for the foreseeable future. 

Bodyline, underarm and other larger events have occurred that changed cricket forever. These were all well within the rules. The purveyors of those tactics didn’t come away with their reputations enhanced but with notoriety. India is deciding to choose Jardine over Bradman and Chappell over dignity of sport. India must think hard and long before choosing to follow such false heroes.

India's away campaign in 2018

In any other time in Indian cricket, 4 Test wins across consecutive tours to South Africa, England and Australia in a 12 month period, would be hailed without conditions. This is however not any other time in Indian cricket. This is the time of Virat Kohli. The one of a winning mindset. The one who puts team goals before individual milestones. The one who wants his bowlers to bowl fast. The one who doesn't mind losing a Test in the quest for a victory. The one who appears willing to live and die by outcomes of cricket matches an not by the number of 100s he and his mates score. 

Virat Kohli is not your regular Indian great. Winning is a large part of who Virat Kohli is. In order to win, Virat Kohli is willing to put the building blocks needed to seek victories. He batted for the coach he wanted, he pushed his players to be more fit, he invested in fast bowlers, he embraced a no-excuses mindset and he created a team culture that did not honor seniority by default. 

And he talked of winning abroad. 

Some saw the spark and a glimpse of what was in store in his first match as captain in Adelaide 2014. Even as India lost that Test, they lost going for an improbable win. 

Since that Test, Virat Kohli has taken India to number one in Test rankings. India have won pretty much everything in sight at home. Outside India, they have won in Sri Lanka and the West Indies. While winning in West Indies is not as hard as it used to be, winning in Sri Lanka as India did after 22 years was special. 

When it comes to winning in England and South Africa, Virat Kohli's India has not broken new ground and in fact under performed in comparison to some of the previous teams who have won tests and drawn series in South Africa and won Test series in England. While the series win in Australia may go a long way in giving the Kohli-Shastri team some breathing space, overall the combined outcome of the 12 Tests in South Africa, England and Australia is a bit disappointing. 4 wins, 7 losses and 1 draw does no justice to the promise of Virat Kohli from 4 years ago. 

I had expected more.

Even so, when you dissect the Test matches, you can draw some conclusions that may lead to a more optimistic outlook for India in the future.

India now have a Test team that can capitalize when conditions and turn of events are even slightly in their favor. Except for the rain in Sydney, India won all Tests when they batted first and when their bowlers were presented the opportunity to bowl last in helpful bowling conditions. They even delivered under pressure of defending smallish first innings targets set by their batsmen. The 250 in the first innings at Adelaide and 187 in the first innings at Johannesburg come to mind. India now have the bowling to get them back in games when their batsmen fail to provide the first innings cushion. Prior to the 2018 tours, in Tests since January 2000, India had lost 15 tests on the road when their batsmen scored 250 or less in the first innings; 11 of them either by an innings or 10 wickets. 

India's bowling has improved but only compared to their own bowling from previous teams. Both in South Africa and in England the home team out bowled India. Previous pace attacks from India were so abysmal or good only in spurts that an attack that consistently takes 20 wickets seems above any criticism. To win Tests however, you have to out bowl the opposition bowlers consistently. On the tour to South Africa, the home bowlers did not match up to the exploits of the South African pacers and in England the home teams all rounders proved too much for India's bowlers to match in skill and variety. 

On difficult pitches India's batting hasn't been able to produce one of those freakish performances that defy norms and conditions. The pitches on offer have been tough and the fourth innings targets have been tricky. As a collective batting unit, rarely across the 7 losses; all when batting second; have India's batsmen been blown away, any more than the home batsmen have struggled. Batting conditions have been tough across the 3 series. To compare the averages of batsmen in this series with previous performances on more friendly pitches and conclude that India's batting has let themselves down is misleading. The only way India could have won any of those 7 tests they lost is if their bowlers would have out bowled the home team bowlers or their batsmen produced a freak performance. Singling out only one aspect is trying to ignore the context of conditions. 

Winning in Australia is satisfying but the performances across the 3 series which was the most anticipated away season was ultimately humbling. 

Australia Gains the High Ground

The condemnation from the Australian media, past cricketers, commentators and the Prime Minister himself was swift and furious. The ink had barely dried on Steve Smith's arrogant acknowledgement of cheating and self absolution, claiming that he was "still the best man to lead" the Australian team. This is a player who has been on a Bradmanesque run making streak. Almost single-handedly holding the team's weak batting together to give their bowlers enough to win matches.

Now we hear of a possible life ban. His deputy, Warner, often in the cross-hairs of the behavior police, and Australia's second best run-maker in the team is also being potentially benched. An unheard of fierce response to an offense that is not the highest offense in the ICC's list of things that can get you in trouble.

There's glee, schadenfreude and a merry goulash of emotions emanating from all over the cricketing world. Past players, current players, commentators, bloggers have all been piling on. The reaction from many thinking people has been one of confusion. Unclear as to why Cricket Australia and the public would be willing to dump their best and second best player for a seemingly trivial offense. That too when the perpetrator has acknowledged, apologized, received the due punishment from ICC and is ready to move on.

The tendency of most boards is to "back their players" when charged with offenses. Most recently, South Africa mounted a furious six hour defense of Kagiso Rabada to dumb down a serious charge. India has routinely thrown tantrums when their players were caught on camera messing with the ball or charged with offenses that would lead to bans. Pakistan has deemed it worthy to forfeit a match and work "posthumously" to get their captain acquitted.

Australia taking the opposite route. Not only are they not backing their players, they are throwing the kitchen sink at them. They are putting the spirit of cricket above a book of ICC rules. Australia have always been proud of playing hard, but "fair". The people had been supportive of the players as long as they felt they were not cheating. But that thin string of trust has been broken by evidence and followed up with a banal apology.

No Australian till now had ever been sanctioned for cheating (ball tampering). Siddle came close but was found not guilty by the referee. Australia has never appealed against a match referee's decision for any offense. They have lived up to the commitment to the process. Contrast that with the responses from other nations.

Australia is willing to let go of their best players to maintain the sanctity of their country's hard won image of fair play. There is no better way to demonstrate commitment to fair sport. Those who see shallowness, opportunism or hypocrisy in this are well-served to look into their own country's responses. The best way out of darkness is sunshine and the Australian PM, public and board are willing to lose the cricket games to ensure that their integrity and sanctity is not put in doubt.

Australia has refrained from spinning a yarn around this, not played the victim and is copping it on their chin. Past players have spoken with one voice. Not one player past or present has come out in support of the players or coach seeking a more lenient view.

Other countries have defined patriotism to mean that any "smear" on their reputation is to be dealt with fierce outrage and potential retribution. This approach serves to embolden perpetrators to bend rules in the name of national honor (winning games). Australia, refreshingly I may add, has taken the approach that no one is allowed to compromise the honor of the nation by cheating in the name of the nation. Australia have attained the moral high ground and the hypocrites stand exposed. India, South Africa and others would do well to follow the Australian example instead of doubling down.

Something fishy about the South African pitches

When South Africa toured India in the winter of 2015, the Nagpur Test lasted 247 overs. A little shy of 3 days assuming a 90 over day. The Capetown Test in comparison lasted 230 overs. And yet after the Nagpur Test questions were raised about the the pitch. It clearly seemed like the pitch had played out of character in comparison to previous Tests on the same ground. A combative Ravi Shastri; the architect of the "Hirwani Test"; had argued the right of the home team to make pitches that suit the strength of the home team.

It left a bad taste in the mouth for purists and Ian Chappel, who'd rather not have host captains meddle with pitch preparation. There was no real evidence of that but Ravi Shastri's comments did not help rule that possibility out.

South Africa lost the Nagpur Test by 124 runs. 40 wickets fell and The highest score in 4 innings in that Test was 215 that India scored on the first day. India too struggled to bat on the pitch

The ICC promptly called out Nagpur for the pitch not meeting Test standards. Or something like that.

Take the Capetown Test, the first Test on India's the ongoing tour of  South Africa.

India lost the test by 72 runs. 40 wickets fell and The highest score in 4 innings in that Test was 286 that South Africa scored on the first day. South Africa too struggled to bat on the pitch.

The Capetown pitch too played out of character. Just like in Nagpur, the scores in this Test at Capetown deviated from the norm. Yet the reaction from commentators which included ex-players was that this was a great Test match. No one questioned the pitch. Just that it had "spice". The ICC is unlikely to sanction the pitch.

The shortness of the Test even compared to the short Nagpur Test was perhaps masked by the fact the official 3rd day in Capetown was washed out.  Another factor could have been that India gave a much better account of themselves and thanks to some sparks from Hardik Pandya, and Bhuvaneshwar Kumar did not get blown away, like the South Africans were at Nagpur. Yet another factor that masked its shortness and prevented any questions about the pitch was that the scoring rate at Capetown across the Test, was 3.3 runs per over as compared to only 2.6 runs at Nagpur. So the Capetown Test was indeed more exciting than the Nagpur Test. There was more attractive cricket.

The single biggest factor though I feel that the pitch was never brought into discussion and assumed to be true and sporting was that India did not make an issue out of it. They had promised not to do so because otherwise it would have been hypocritical.

India seemed to have boxed themselves into letting South Africa and popular opinions; which do not always lend kindness to a traveling Indian team; run away with dictating the narrative of the pitches. So much so that in the second Test, they let Morne Morkel get away with setting the narrative that the Centurion pitch was "like playing in the subcontinent". India did not counter. They could not.

The rivalry between South Africa and India has deteriorated to a point that both sides are scared of losing at home to the other and not confident of winning in typical home conditions.

India started it.

I was hoping South Africa would take the high ground which would lead India to follow suit.

India Coach: Kumble has himself to blame

When Anil Kumble was plucked out of nowhere and inserted as coach of India's national team, he was staring at a 13 Test home season and a mildly strenuous tour of the West Indies. 

He was in charge of a team that was already the best in the world in Test cricket. He had friends in high places who had put him as coach in the first place, removing his predecessor Ravi Shastri on what can be called a technicality. In Virat Kohli, he had a captain who had in the previous year and a half showed a willingness to play for wins at all times. A captain who seemed to have developed specific ideas on how to go about doing it. 

A 5 bowler strategy; albeit which was occasionally sacrificed, banking on pace - no more just bowling in the "right areas", a premium on scoring rate; which put Cheteshwar Pujara's spot under pressure early on and lastly fitness by example. Those ideas were already bringing in the results. India's batting had a memorable tour of Australia in 2014/2015 and when India's fast bowlers joined the captain's vision, they won an away Test series in Sri Lanka for the first time in 23 years. 

All Kumble had to do was to understand this blueprint and build a rapport with the captain, his team and treat them as equals. More importantly, treat them like adults. Ravi Shastri before him, tends to do just that. He becomes one of them. This is not to say that this is an ideal strategy for a coach. For another team, for another time, Shastri may just be the wrong man for the job.

It is pretty hard to argue though that this particular Indian team with abundance and variety of skills, a professional approach to fitness led by a captain with definitive ideas on winning and early results that validated his leadership; needed anything more than a catalyst coach. A coach who would focus on removing any roadblocks with the board and help the team execute this blueprint. 

If Anil Kumble now finds himself out of a coaching job, it is quite baffling that he has botched up a very easy assignment. What really irks me about the whole Kumble episode though is that he has managed to walk away with all the sympathy and the media and ex-players have tried to paint Virat Kohli as the "spoilt brat". The people, the experts and the media seem hurt that a legend was treated unfairly. Is being a great leg spinner for your country an insurance against future job firing, without your value even so much as considered.

There are however 2 things one must credit Kumble for. 

One of that is the pitches. Ravi Shastri is a hawk when it comes to over engineered pitches. His only Test has captain and the few Tests with him as the Team director (coach) for home Tests have coincided with pitches that were minefields. There is admittedly no evidence of a coach having an influence over pitches but Ravi Shastri has wholeheartedly defended India's right to engineer minefields, claiming that "everyone else does it too". Under Kumble the pitches have been true and Kumble has a higher sense of spirit of the game than Shastri. The later is more like an Australian; willing to challenge norms if not the rules outright. 

Secondly, he seemed to have played a role in getting Chetashwar Pujara back into the team after he lost his place to what Virat Kohli claimed as an inability "to force the pace". Pujara is a valuable player at a crucial spot and his dropping may be a case of Virat Kohli being too aggressive for the sake of being aggressive. Notice how England have been struggling to win Tests without a solid number 3. 

In sum though, Anil Kumble has probably only himself to blame for his inability to forge a working relationship with Kohli and to get on board with his blueprint. This is after all Kohli's team and the choice of Kohli over Kumble in a situation where the 2 are not on talking terms, is the most logical one. It should have been made without showing Virat Kohli in bad light.

And what of the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC)?  Their job is actually easier than Kumble's. It also comes with no apparent accountability. How do we know for sure the CAC is doing its job well and what's the consequence of not doing it well? Who is to tell Sachin Tendulkar not to show up for work and face the wrath of crazed fans and a worshiping media? 

This committee exists to advice on the selection of a coach. It is understood by most reasonable people that an advice is kind of a recommendation. On the 2 instances they were tasked with the mundane job of finding a coach; a job most boards and the BCCI themselves carry out without much fanfare; the CAC have raised eyebrows. 

The CAC consists of Sachin Tendulkar, Saurav Ganguly and VVS Laxman. Very important people and big names all. Just because a job is carried out by important people doesn't make the job itself any more important than what it originally is. It was to simply recommend a coach. 

Instead, the first time around they offered the job to Anil Kumble who had not applied for it; removing Shastri because he chose to interview via Skype and the second time around they seemed reluctant to give Virat Kohli, the coach he wanted and when they did offer it to Shastri, they  seemed to sneak in 2 more of their classmates as batting and bowling coaches. 

Leaving their on field exploits from their playing days, aside the CAC have not shown the maturity, the ability to rise above personal friendships, remain on the sidelines and do what's right for Virat Kohli and Team India. There is no bigger conflict of interest in cricket today than the CAC recommending their classmates for important jobs in the day to day functioning of the cricket team. The committee, if needed at all, needs to be more diverse and educated on the basics of cricket administration. Right now its just runs and 100s heavy. 

That leaves Virat Kohli and his role in this episode. So far he has played it with a straight bat, like his new coach would have liked and managed to stay above the immaturity shown by his seniors in using the glory of their playing days to garner sympathy and writing letters leaked to the press playing the victim.

In my books Virat Kohli comes out of this episode the clear winner by simply staying out of it and knowing how to get what he wants to execute his strategy to win Test matches for India. 

The Mistakes are Piling Up

Virat Kohli arrived like a breath of fresh air as captain in 2014 and has delivered on nearly every front. I was sold on his brand of cricket. It was the brand that I had wanted from the Sachin generation, but never materialized. I was disillusioned when Sachin quit as captain and gave up on wanting to mold an aggressive team that would play to win. Kohli had reversed all that. Losses didn't matter. What mattered was the brand of aggressive cricket we played. We played to win, not draw and as a result we probably lost some matches we could have drawn.

The recent home season in India continued that brand of cricket. New Zealand and England were put to the sword in an almost Australia-like manner. Umesh Yadav, Mohammed Shami and Ishant Sharma were unleashed and spinners too bowled aggressive, attacking lines. Batsmen, led by Pujara and the captain himself bossed some of the best bowlers in the world.  This was a never before seen exhibition of big cricket from an Indian team. Gone seemed to be the days of percentage cricket to minimize losses and attrition methods to swoop down on the opposition with a spin attack when the chance came.

All of this came to screeching halt in the second test versus Australia. The opposition won the first test by besting India in its own conditions. The captain himself was tamed and Australia romped to a well deserved win. The first signs of mistakes started in the second test. Kohli was pouting about sledging, his runs deserted him against a well-thought out strategy by Australian quicks and spinners and he seemed to have no answers. Instead of backing his original strategy and demanding execution from his team-mates, he caved in and gave up on the three fast men strategy. It was only in the final test that India returned to its Kohli roots and Umesh Yadav's blistering spell opened up the Dharmasala test for India to win the series. But a lot of unanswered questions remained.

Who backtracked on the team composition? Why did it take a test played under Rahane (Kohli was injured) for India to redeploy the plan that had worked so well for most of the season? Why did Kohli retreat to a "draw first" mindset? Why did Kohli sulk and pout about sledging when he knew what is always in store playing versus Australia? Shades of the Anderson-Jadeja "pushing" saga where India promptly lost the remaining tests? Kohli's inability to cope with Australia's bowling plans too was pushed under the carpet following a productive IPL. Clearly, Kohli didn't work on these weaknesses as we will see later.

On the ODI front, India are a team that is rebuilding. However, the approach in the Champions Trophy didn't reflect that at all. The loss versus Sri Lanka should have opened the captain's eyes to India's weaknesses. As much as people want to make it about bowling, it wasn't. The weakness was in India batting. The batting line-up is being re-built with Yuvraj, Dhoni in unfamiliar roles. Kedar Jadhav and Hardik Pandya as finishers too was a new set up. In the first ODI versus England at home, Yuvraj and Dhoni both failed in pursuit of 350 and it was Kedar and Hardik along with Kohli that brought India home. A first sign that experience didn't count for much when chasing big runs. Perhaps. In the last ODI too India failed to reach the target by five runs, but it was Jadhav and Pandya that nearly pulled it off and not Dhoni and Yuvraj. Including both these veterans was clearly proven to be a mistake.

It's safe to say that India over-achieved in the Champions Trophy. On a day when Jadhav and Kohli have off-days, India cannot chase much is what it feels like. Yuvraj and Dhoni are not the answers. The real shocker though wasn't the decision to chase with an unproven batting line-up. The biggest mistake was once again perhaps on the bowling front. Excluding Umesh Yadav to bring in the "experienced" Ashwin was probably the biggest blooper that no one wants to talk about. Yadav has demonstrated his shock value in pressure situations. Where both teams are under pressure. In the final test versus Australia when they had to force the situation in order to gain the Border-Gavaskar trophy back, Yadav broke open the game with a blistering spell. Perhaps the best ever by an Indian bowler in my life time on Indian soil (with due respect to Srinath). Yadav proved this again in the first game of the Champions Trophy where he broke the back of Pakistan's batting. He was dropped based on his performance versus Sri Lanka, though the real issue there was Yuvraj's inability to fire and help put up a total beyond Sri Lanka's reach on that featherbed.

Speaking about Kohli's failure in the final. He fell exactly the way Australia plotted his downfall in the test series. Played on his patience outside off-stump with away swinging or angling deliveries and forced him into a mistake. Kohli didn't have an answer then and no answer versus Amir either.

Add to this Kohli's spat with Kumble. The first cracks became visible in the curious case of Cheteshwar Pujara. Pujara forcing his way back into the team on Kohli's terms was a heart-warming event. And Kohli said the right things about Pujara and his re-invented batting style. The first mistake was perhaps Kumble speaking out of turn to suggest that his word about Pujara mattered more than what the captain felt.

Apparently, the duo wasn't on speaking terms for six months. Yet, Kumble claims that he only came to know from BCCI that the captain didn't have confidence in  him. Ridiculousness at its worst. A captain deserves a coach that he can work with. We dumped Chappell who didn't do well with Sachin (though he wasn't captain). No one knows where Dravid stood on that. Luckily Kumble excused himself though the hypocritical Committee wanted him to continue. Hypocritical because this was the same group that rebelled against Chappell and got him canned.

We really don't know who had the final say in team selections or the strategies. It's clear that a number of mistakes have been made that have produced bad results and is souring the team's relationship with ardent, thinking fans, who have yearned for an approach like Kohli seemed to have been advocating. Hopefully, Kohli will reflect on these last few months and usher in the few minor changes that are needed to reduce mistakes. I hope that the new coach is supportive of the captain and is willing work with him to make his vision a reality. The ODI team has a few leaks yet before it can be deemed ready for the World Cup. The test team has fewer holes, but some disturbing things have happened.

It's time to eliminate these mistakes and play to potential  A well fought loss (like the ones in 2014 in Australia are more exciting than dull draws and pusillanimous cricket. Cheers once again to the new India.

India's ODI Template is Outdated

The vibrancy that is India's Test team is not reflected in its ODI and T20 outfit. The promise that every Test will be played to win is Virat Kohli's most refreshing and welcome quality. The days of hiding behind processes and being almost demure about going for wins is thankfully behind us...

...In Tests.

In LOI cricket however, the hangover of the previous generation persists. Virat Kohli, so far, has either been unable to shake it off or he is less confident of imposing his own fresh, new vision. When India's squad was announced for the Champions Trophy, it seemed a good one to win a World Championship if it were held a decade ago. IPL performances were ignored and the middle order and spin slots were treated as long service appreciation or servitude awards. Virat Kohli is clearly behind the curve when it comes to LOI cricket.  

The captain of a country that is home to the most explosive T20 league in the world that throws up innovations every few years said,  

"Explosive cricket is not our brand"

uh...?

There is something not quite Virat Kohli in India's LOI team. This still seems very much Mahendra Singh Dhoni's team. His vision. Something that worked in 2011, 2013 and to some extent in 2015 but clearly not good enough for the Fakhar Zamans and Shadab Khans of the world. Dhoni is a once great LOI master who probably doesn't have it in him to outsmart the bravado and fearlessness of the next generation of Pakistan Super League stars. He increasingly resembles a dead man walking, constantly checking around to see if he has done enough to keep his place in the side. 

The win for Pakistan was a good one and for cricket romantics... even a heart warming one. India's LOI approach has been outdated for a while now and it would have been a tragedy if it wasn't "found out" in a global event of this scale and in the humiliating margin that eventually separated the 2 teams. It clearly calls for a fresh approach. 

Pakistan, a country that is internationally isolated when it comes to cricket and doesn't have access to the IPL, shed its aging heroes and trusted the talent the Pakistan Super League threw up to leave the reigning Champions shell shocked and humiliated. If this were a 100 meter race, India wasn't even in the frame when Pakistan crossed the finish line. If this were a game of soccer, it had parallels to Brazil 1 - Germany 7. 

India's approach to maintain the LOI supremacy it gained in 2011 have been to indulge in half measures so far. There is plenty of local talent to be found in the IPL only if India is willing to ignore the past achievements of our middle order and spinners in particular. None of whom had a half decent IPL but were still picked to maintain status quo; as if to assume that the opposing teams have stopped evolving themselves. 

India's Test team is far more mentally strong. Right from the Adelaide Test in 2014, Virat Kohli's first Test as a stand in captain, the team has promised to play for wins and have delivered on that.  It has lost matches going for improbable wins and set up wins from hopeless situations. Its a joy to watch them because no other Indian team has played such a positive game. 

India's LOI side however, still has one foot in the old world. 

India have world class talent emerging every IPL season but strangely unwilling to trust its own platform that throws up these stars. Why were IPL non-performances ignored when it came time to defend the Champions Trophy.

Its not like I think Pakistan will sustain their success over a period of time. Come the 2019 World Cup at the same venue, they will obviously start as favorites but if Virat Kohli is fully entrusted with the reins for LOI cricket, I have a good feeling about 2019. 

Go Green

It is now no longer about skills. Australia have assaulted India's pride. India might think it's about lack of proper judgement on part of their batsmen, Virat Kohli might admonish his fellow batsmen all he wants for not adapting or applying themselves. That is not going to salvage this series.

The desire that Australia have shown to keep the Border-Gavaskar trophy with themselves seems to have shocked the Indian team into a state of immobility. That Australia have not rolled over into submission as they were expected to have left the Indian team without the back to stand up to Australia's spinners.

Before this long Indian home season, Kohli had marked England among the visiting teams as the team to watch out for. Perhaps he was playing mind games with Australia. Either that has backfired or he was simply wrong in his assessment.

Perhaps India are simply mentally tired after a long home season. May be they did underestimate Australia even though they may never admit it. Perhaps it's just a case of Australia being too good for India so far. There was always the possibility of Australia's spin, with top class pace support and the prolific Steve Smith against India would make this a competitive series. No one was counting on Australia producing such a dominant performance.

There is no precedent to a visiting team felling India's famed batsmen under 200 in 3 straight innings. The response then also needs to be something that is unprecedented. Playing to their traditional strengths has been a shocking failure.

They can't seem to get Steve Smith out before he reaches three figures and they can barely last 2 or 3  sessions against Nathan Lyon and Steve O'Keefe. And KL Rahul's optimism about R Ashwin running through Australia on day 2 appears firmly grounded in delusion. Steve Smith himself has scored a comparable number of runs against India in the last 3 innings than the whole of India's batting has scored against Australia. It is beginning to feel like 20 of Steve Smiths 18 Test 100s have come against India.

Unless something remarkable happens tomorrow this is looking like 0-4 for India. Perhaps too early and irresposible to make it a prediction but after all we do know the making of a white wash feels like around this point in a series.

The only way I think India can now salvage this series is to swallow their pride about spin, and try to trip Australia on green tops. Nathan Lyon and Steve O'Keefe who were scoffed at before the tour are now the most fearsome duo of bowlers ever to visit India.
To take them out of the game is India's best option if they lose this test too to Australian spin.

Among the many things so refreshing about Virat Kohli is how he has kept his fast bowlers engaged even in home conditions. It's time to ask them to salvage this series. Results from 3 innings is good enough to conceded that our batsmen can't handle Lyon and O'Keefe. Let's ask Australia to deal with our fast men. Surely they didn't come prepared for that.

An Epic Backfire

One of the most refreshing aspects of Virat Kohli as a sportsman has been his willingness to feed off cricket crazy fans. While those before him at times seemed bogged down by misreading the adulation as "unreasonable expectations" to win every game, Virat Kohli has openly stated that his team will play every game to win and engages with the crowd urging them to egg his team on. 

Those who came before him were willing , for the most part, to grind the opposition down by putting up runs on the board and slowly chipping away at the opposition batsmen and wait for the wicket to naturally deteriorate and go for the kill. This seemed to the Indian Template. Where runs on the board created the pressure in the absence of genuine fast balling and Tests, that appeared to head nowhere suddenly got alive on the last day. 

Most Indian batsmen know how to play on these wickets. When India's own batsmen struggle at home and collapse in consecutive innings one has to wonder if the pitch was a factor. Nathan Lyon is an accomplished spinner and India have lost to him in Adelaide not too long ago. Steve O'Keefe had shown promise in the one Test he played on Australia's recent horror tour of Sri Lanka. Neither are this good though. To knock India out 2 innings in succession in India.

Kohli is the kind of sportsman that most fans of my generation: who grew up watching cricket in the late 70s and 80s, yearned for. A bad ass, no nonsense leader who wants to cleanse Indian teams of their infuriating tendency to seek personal milestones on the road to victory. A trait that has plagued the team for decades. 

However his tendency to seek wins by controlling the pitch curating process is off putting. Not just because it sometimes backfires to humiliate like it did in Pune but it's not how most fans want to see India win.

Pakistan Near the Pinnacle

This week, we saw a refreshing show of strength by all the South Asian teams. Sri Lanka hammered Australia at home and exposed their vulnerabilities to spin. As numerous articles in Cricinfo have pointed out, Australia simply have not recovered from the loss of their previous greats. Angelo Mathews must heave a sigh of relief after the virtual obliteration in England. Sri Lankan cricket seemed to have descended into mediocrity after Jayawardene and Sangakarra. But Mathews, Chandimal and Herath have brought them right back. Mendis' excellent innings in the first test too may raise hopes of a long term find.

Meanwhile, India recovered swiftly from their second test set-back (if one can call it that) and made quick work of West Indies. Virat Kohli made some astute changes and quickly put behind him, the tough draw in the second test. His desire to win every game is apparent in the way he attacks the opposition and throws everything he has in his arsenal at them. India can seal the number one spot with yet another win in the next test at Port of Spain. India have done well there traditionally and chances are that India will dominate that test. Virat Kohli is almost Steve Waugh-like in his desire to be ruthless. His team selection is un-emotional and exciting. Very few saw these changes coming (including me) but never-the-less it was a pleasant and pulsating exercise by the captain. At the risk of repeating myself, watching India play test cricket is a dream come true. So purely on results alone India deserve to be number one.

But the most remarkable cricket story is Pakistan's redemption at the Oval. They've firmly put back the spot-fixing, squabbles and domestic security issues and built themselves into a formidable team. They've beaten a strong team away from home against all odds. At the start of the series, Pakistan was not given much of a chance. England were formidable at home with their varied bowling attack. Pakistan's frailties with the bat are well known. Few thought that they could win the series with their bowling alone.

In the end, Misbah-ul-Haq was named man of the series and aptly so. Younis Khan and Misbah-ul-Haq have made us fall in love with the Pakistan brand of cricket all over again. The sheer romance of Pakistan's cricket lies in the fact that they play what many consider to be an old-fashioned game. Yet time and again, they've proven that their passion for the game is second to none and their ability to switch on in key moments is top class. They've given us many moments to remember.

Younis Khan's 218 will rank as one of the greatest innings played in England. I can't remember the last time anyone scored a 200 against Anderson and Broad in England in their prime. To dig deep and come up with such a special innings away from home is the definition of greatness. Even more endearing has been the honest post match comments and interviews from both Misbah and Younis. They have the rare ability to remain in the present and grounded. Truly great sportsmen and we are lucky to have watched this series. Add Wahab Riaz to this pantheon and we have a group of cricketers who are grounded, real and salt-of-the-earth likeable.

Regardless of whether India becomes number one, Pakistan will rule the hearts of true cricket fans for months to come.

It's enjoyable watching India in tests.....

Watching India play test cricket has never been more enjoyable than now. The only other time India played more entertaining cricket across any format was in the 1985 B&H World Series in Australia. This was an ODI tournament. Whether the TV made it that way or whether the flamboyant keeper Sadanand Vishwanath did that I can't say, but it was mind blowingly entertaining.

This test team is by far the most entertaining Indian side I have watch in my lifetime. It plays riskier cricket than the Azhar-Tendulkar generations did  or the Kapil/Gavaskar one before that and plays more solidly at the same time. A cool paradox, if you ask me. While the Tendulkar generation has accumulated a number of runs and records, this generation will accumulate more wins. Virat Kohli is the lynch pin of this transformation. Much like Clive Lloyd transformed the West Indies from merry losers to into fearsome winners, Virat is transforming Indian cricket from a team afraid of losing to a team daring to be beaten.

The most refreshing thing about Virat is that he is not afraid to lose. Between the lines I read, we used to lose anyways, why not lose fighting? At least give ourselves a chance. Change the reaction of the opposition with the team's attitude. I love his persistence with Umesh Yadav, who hasn't truly delivered yet, but from time to time delivered breathtaking spells that make one sit up with bated breath. The pressure he creates when on song and when he makes the batsmen hop is a connoisseur's dream. The bowling attack will create more wins. It needs a little more time. They are not in the same class as England or Australia, but those two teams possess generations of fast bowling knowledge. The Indian team is just starting out.

Appointing Kumble as coach has been a mistake in my opinion. But not a big one. Kumble will hopefully not be tainted by the safety first attitude of the Tendulkar/Ganguly era in overseas tests. Virat's refusal to include a sixth batsman is awesome. It may fail at times or even many times, but it's the only strategy that gives India a shot at winning more test matches. Four bowlers will tire after 2-3 test matches. Five bowlers can last longer assuming they bowl 30-45 overs per test. Srinath used to be run into the ground by his captains bowling 45-60 overs per test. Kumble's strike rates also tell a tale of overworked bowlers. It's a lose-lose proposition.

India won the first test with ease and put themselves into a winning position in the second. The wins will come with more experience of bowling with five bowlers. The new era is now underway and for one this writer is back watching test cricket after the listless last years of Tendulkar and Dhoni.

India v South Africa: An Inauthentic Series Win for India

Most of the top 5 India batsmen in the recently concluded India v South Africa series had averages in the 20s and 30s. Ajinkya Rahane is the only one with a 50+ average and the only century maker over 4 tests in India. I don't remember any series in India where our top batsmen have averaged so low. Unless anyone thinks this South African attack was the most lethal to ever play on Indian shores; there is no question that the pitches behaved contrary to traditional Indian pitches.

When your team is winning, pumping their fists and thumping their chests at the fall of a wicket and you as a long time fan of the game, and the team, feel something hollow inside and don't even feel like joining in from your living room, you tend to question the authenticity of the win. The pitches in this series played out of character. Mohali didn't look and play like Mohali, Nagpur didn't look and play like Nagpur. It was hard not to question, whether the team had crossed the line and ordered an under prepared pitch and were justifying it as "home advantage"

For a casual fan, the most joyful wins are wins away from home, away from the subcontinent. We know those wins are rare but when they do come, we hold on to those forever. Those are wins our teams have achieved under conditions not only foreign but also achieved in settings where our teams had no control over.

And those same fans hope that home wins are authentic. Authentic in the sense that teams don't try to tweak too many control-ables in their favor. There is no honor in just winning for winning's sake. India may have won the series, India may feel they have the right to order pitches that their own batsmen struggle on, India may feel they have the right to deny criticism of the pitches. But they don't have the right to dictate what fans feel. If India's players want to win and enjoy their wins alone, they are welcome to. If they want to gain respect of their rivals and support of their fans, then they need to seek more authenticity to their home wins

The new Ricky Ponting?

I hope this madness ends. I hope India learns not to counter their insecurity of winning on typical Indian pitches by doctoring them. This 3-0 score line is the most hollow, most in-authentic win I have ever witnessed

South Africa - Chokers no more

This was a curious South African team. Confidence misplaced, more words than deeds. Taking themselves too seriously. For a casual observer they gave a sense of someone running in the same place and feeling mighty pleased with themselves.

As a player, AB DeVillers is all action. His performances speak for himself. As a captain he led a South African team who were seduced by themselves. Previous South African teams seduced us, this one was self seduced and we watched in amusement their skipper speak tall, bold words even as they lost almost all their matches to decent teams.

Except Sri Lanka, South Africa failed to beat any serious team.

And yet, they believed they could win the cup. This is quite different from traditional South African teams who others believed in, spoke less, did more but ultimately did not have the self belief.

Before their game with India, in the group stages, South Africa were the favorites. They lost. Before their game with Pakistan, in the group stages, South Africa were the favorites. They lost. Before their semi final game with New Zealand, South Africa were the favorites. They lost.

It took sustained ineptitude to finally get rid of the chokers tag. Nobody can say South Africa choked. This time they were simply not good enough.

Why do we let South Africa seduce us?

I remember the days when South Africa were banned from international cricket. There was a lot of intrigue around them. I had read about people like Clive Rice, about Graham Pollock; that he had a batting average of almost 61... I had read about the exploits of Barry Richards, Mike Procter who bowled off the wrong foot; if I remember my reading correctly... knew a bit about Eddie Barlow, Ali Bacher....

I knew that without South Africa international cricket was missing a formidable team.

I watched with keen interest when India welcomed South Africa back to the international fold and I remember watching on TV Alan Donald charging in and bowling fast in India in a one day game. He was bowling faster than Malcom Marashall I had thought. Later when India became the first team to tour South Africa for a full Test series, I remember Pravin Amre scoring a dour century on debut.

Then came the 1992 world cup. Within a year of South Africa returning back to the international game, they were getting a chance to play the World Cup. Every one was curious as to how would they compare and compete with other international team. Having followed India's games with them, they clearly seemed a stronger side to me.

A lot of buzz around the 1992 world cup was due to South Africa's presence. It seemed like they had the sympathy vote. For what .... I don't know but it seemed to me that people wanted them to do well.

And then Johnty Rhodes flew out Inzamam Ul-Haq....

And the world was seduced.

South Africa brought in a very different brand of cricket to the World Cup. They fielded like no other team had fielded before, they seemed better coached and their cricket seemed rational and unemotional. They didn't smile like the West Indians did, they didn't have nearly as much the passion like the Pakistanis did, they seemed a bit like the Australians, scowling all the time and taking themselves too seriously but more mechanical. They didn't seem to have India's flair or guile. They were as good as any other team and different too.

But ever since that 1992 World Cup they have seduced cricket fans like no other team has.

Since their re-entry they have started every world cup being considered as legitimate favorites. And yet after 26 years of World Cup history behind them, they have yet to win a knockout game in the World Cup. Their exits are a combination of bad luck, foolishness, panic, screwed up rain rules, math errors, tactical blunders and stage fright.

In 1992 silly rain rule left them needing to get 22 runs off one ball, when before the rain they had 18 balls to get them.

In 1996 they came up with a brain dead idea of dropping Alan Donald for the quarter finals and Brian Lara made them pay.

In 1999 they picked Alan Donald for their semifinal against Australia but he had a brain freeze of his own which resulted in his getting run out, the game ending as a tie and Australia progressing on the basis of a previous Super Six match win.

In 2003 they forgot that D/L targets list scores needed to equal and that teams have to score one more than the D/L score listed to win a game. As the rain came down Boucher meekly tapped the last ball before the rain meekly to mid wicket which tied the game when they needed to win it.

In 2007, they were too jittery in the semi finals and the match was effectively over in 10 overs with South Africa 27-5

In 2011 they collapsed chasing a smallish target against another fellow chokers, New Zealand who before that game hadn't won any knock-out game themselves.

This is their 7th attempt. But isn't 6 flops good enough to ask the question why do we let South Africa seduce us every 4 years?

Why for instance before their game against Pakistan, were South Africa considered favorites and no one was giving Pakistan any chance. What is it about South Africa's weakness we are willing to ignore and what is it about Pakistan's strengths which they have demonstrated in almost every world cup barring 2007; that we are unwilling to acknowledge.

Beating Pakistan just isn't the same any more

For those of us who watched "that shot" Javed Miandad deposited into the crowd off a Chetan Sharma full-toss; these 6 wins in the World Cup, starting in Sydney 1992 against Pakistan are sweet revenge.

You know...I want to feel that way but I don't.

Perhaps that sixer has already been avenged or it may never be. Try as I may, I do not believe India has won a one-day game; a final at that; in quite the fashion Javed Miandad did that day in 1986. May be Sachin's attack on Shoaib Akhtar at Centurion in the 2003 World Cup game comes a little close. Both were true assaults on the psyche of respective fans. But I'd have to get into the mind of a Pakistani cricket fan for a little while to know if those knocks are comparable.

But...I don't think "that shot" needs to be avenged any more....

Recent Indian teams, it seems, have the same attitude and skill that we envied about Pakistani teams of the 80s and 90s. Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Shikhar Dhawan, Suresh Raina and Virat Kohli are as Pakistani in the way they clinically chase targets or set them up that they could very well be the Javed Miandad, Ijaz Ahmen, Saleem Malik and Aamir Sohail from a generation ago.

But we don't have a Wasim Akram or a Waqar Younis or even an Aqib Javed....so any comparison to those Pakistani teams that traumatized us can only be a superficial search for a non existent symmetry,

Over the years Pakistan cricket has suffered. They no longer field teams like they used to in the 80s and 90s...even early 2000s. For that 2003 Centurion game, Pakistan had fielded a strong team. It meant something when India chased down that formidable total.

Compared to that game, the 2011 and 2015 wins seem facile.

Before the Adelaide game during the current World Cup it seemed this was Pakistan's best chance to finally win one against India. India had not won anything on the long tour and there were some doubts creeping in my mind if the reason for that was a weakness in the team exploited by Australian conditions.

The manner in which the game unfolded however and the meekness of Pakistan's fight makes that initial gut assessment look foolish.

While there is relief that India has won another game and the streak is still in tact, one cannot ignore the feeling of the win being facile. Moreover, recent trend holds no promises of enthralling contests like the ones in Sharjah 1986 and Centurion 2003.

There is no joy in beating Pakistan anymore because it seems to be happening so often these days and its hard to ignore that recent Pakistan teams are like poorly made Bollywood sequels of relatively decent-er originals.

Having witnessed West Indies's demise in its entirety, I fear that Pakistan cricket is headed the same way. The frequency of a new "fast bowling find" has drastically reduced and there is no batsman that has emerged in the last few years that can come even remotely close to the likes of Virat Kohli or Shikhar Dhawan. 

The World Cup

The last people to let go of their old gods are the loyal priests. And Srinivasan is the latest example where the cabal most benefiting from his occupation of BCCI and ICC's chair is the one that's most quiet and protective of him. There is no doubt that its self-preservation at work because without these old gods, the priest would have to re-think their lives.

As painful as the saga of Srinivasan has been, it's been more painful to hear the deafening silence of the cricketing gods. India has perhaps survived for many centuries of conquests due to its ability to "shake it off" and continue as if nothing happened. And so we continue to indulge in navel gazing and waiting for the next puppet to emerge from the shadows. The heroes for many of these loyal priests seem to be the Putin-Medvedev combine and not the high standards set by Mandela or Washington. But it's dumb to even think that a man more or less accused of re-writing the constitution to suit his personal agenda would display any different behavior nor that his cabal would condemn it.

Its painful to hear Shastri, Gavaskar, Dhoni and others talk about BCCI and Srinivasan as being the same and pointing to high player salaries and perks as the justification for their enduring admiration. Is this what sport is all about now? Are our sporting gods all about this now? Do they believe that getting a fair deal is a blessing and that it's due to one individual? And that if Srinivasan were to be criticized or held accountable for over-reach, they would lose their pay? And so it's ok to cower in blackmail? What about the cricket? Is cricket in India beholden to one or two persons' largesse? Really?

And the Indian team is a clear reflection of what can be despite our administrators' best efforts to hog the limelight. I think Dhoni is a super player and a great captain. And I think Kohli is playing the brand of cricket that I hoped Tendulkar would always play. Kohli doesn't have Tendulkar's aura yet and he will likely never have that mystique due to the privacy that was dear to Tendulkar. However, Kohli with his public engagement and willingness to live life on his terms without any apologies is refreshing. I sincerely hope that people who don't like his brashness and are worshipers of humility don't trash him the moment he starts failing. He deserves as long a rope if not longer than what Tendulkar was given when his form slumped.

India has no bowling worth the name and it's batting is struggling to come to grips with Australia. While Rohit Sharma's form is a welcome sign, Dhawan hasn't produced a single meaningful innings in all his time in Australia. And without both openers being in form, India have no chance. Turning to Kohli or Dhoni or magic in every game isn't a formula for success. Rahane and Raina can add bulk but cannot turn games on their head. At best they are valuable supporting cast. The players that can take the game away from the opposition are Rohit, Kohli and Dhoni. These are the men that no one has answers for.

Pakistan is inspired and yet I don't see how they can topple this Indian team. But if Pakistan has had a better chance I don't know of one. India usually don't start well in such tournaments but this would be a home world cup for India given the amount of time they've spent in Australia.

This Pakistan team under Misbah is a team that I can like. Misbah, Afridi and Younis represent the three types of Pakistan teams that we've all come to see. Misbah is about the steel and pride that Zaheer Abbas and Asif Iqbal reflected, Afridi is the mercurial ability Inzy, Akram and Waqar played with and Younis is about the passion that we saw from Imran, Sarfraz, Miandad and Saeed Anwar. There is a certain beauty to Pakistan cricket that few teams can match.

I put India a nose ahead in this game simply because Indians have played a lot of cricket and don't usually need miracles to win games. They are experienced and know when to turn it on.

World Cups in Australia

Mahendra Singh Dhoni has had to resort to - "This is more or less the same team than won the Champions Trophy" and "These guys know how to deliver in ICC tournaments"... He is essentially pleading to keep the faith in his team. You surely can't expect him to say what he really thinks, which could be "How on God's green earth am I going to win anything worthwhile with this team"

A World Cup in Australia always seems enticing for an Indian fan. Memories of getting up early to watch Roger Binny take out David Boon, Azharuddin fielding like an international cricketer pulling off a catch at point and India winning the World Championship of cricket are still fresh. The few times India have done well in Australia somehow mask the routine mauling and disappointments India has been subjected to in Australia.

The last time too, in 1992, India had embarked on what Sanjay Manjrekar called "an endless summer". That world cup had ended in disappointment. Shrikanth holing out to Deepak Patel to that one fielder on long-on to start a must win game against New Zealand, Venkatapathi Raju celebrating too early and getting run-out going for a run that could have tied the game against Australia, rain ruining the game against Sri Lanka and Ian Botham taking out Sachin Tendulkar when he seemed set to take control of the chase...

The lasting images of that World Cup did not include many Indian moments. Inzamam's mauling of New Zealand, Johnty - the airplane, a Wasim Akram special in the final, New Zealand's innovations at the beginning of each innings; batting and bowling... 

That World Cup was also where 2 themes took birth. South Africa's emergence as a side that could find impossible reasons to lose a match they have all but won (The crooked rain rule cost India and South Africa games they should have won) and India never having lost a game to Pakistan at a World Cup.

Given how this Indian team has done so far on the tour, there shouldn't be much optimism to even match the performance from 1992. It seems that the fight India showed in the Test series was false advertisement for the World Cup.

The World Cup is providing diminishing value

The format of this World Cup is such that it would be virtually impossible for India to not qualify for the Quarter Finals, 5 weeks into the excrutiatingly long tournament after an equally long winless series against Australia and England on this tour. It would be commendable if India go any deeper into this tournament 

It is sad how, over the years, the game has become lopsided in terms of distribution of sporting prowess. 

The West indies are a side in turmoil, where they have got themselves into a situation where they cannot send their best side. Pakistan seem to be stuck in the 80s; some may say England's too. The promise of Bangladesh now seems misplaced and Zimbabwe's political situation has left its cricket weak. Post 2003, World Cups have ceased to be truly open events and the decline of many teams has robbed the recent World Cups of a good amount of high quality competition.

Administrators may pat themselves on the back for maximizing their revenue streams, but for the average fan the World Cup is providing diminishing value. It is in the hands of sides like Afghanistan, Ireland,   Scotland and UAE to deliver that excitement in the early stages. Australia, New Zealand and South Africa seem set to do the same in the knock out stages. Pakistan having won the World Cup in Australia before, has to get a token mention as a dark horse, simply as a mark of respect for Imran Khan's triumph in 1992.

India is a side bound to be weighed down by the length of the tour and judicual proceedings at home and their World Cup may well end emotionally just as soon as it begins if the place where 'the streak' started also becomes the place where Pakistan finally win one against India.