Small gains from the Big Game country

The tour of South Africa was talked about for more than it actually lasted. First there were questions as to whether the tour would take place at all, then there were questions as to whether Sachin would play and once that was laid to rest, there were questions raised as to whether India would even be able to compete without Sachin in SA.

Thankfully though, the wait for the answers wasn't long. The one big sore point of the tour was that it was way too short. It started well after the other marquee series the Ashes had started and ended with still a test match left in the Ashes.

There is always the risk of reading too much into the results of a series that had all of 3 ODIs and 2 test matches, but some of the messages that came out were crystal clear and the powers-that-be of Indian would do well to take note if they have intentions of ridding the Indian team of the tag of "Tigers at home, paper tigers abroad".

MS Dhoni mentioned about his boys being "Fantastic" in the series, but the scoreline tended to paint a slightly different story.

First the ODI series. India lost 2 of the 3 matches with the other being rained out. The margin of defeat in the 2 ODIs was comprehensive with no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind as to which was the better team. This mind you, when SA were actually the underdogs going by the ODI team rankings. The Indian bowling was savaged and their batsmen battered into meek submission. Had the weather gods not intervened SA would in all probability have made a clean sweep of the series, going by the form book. The only gain if one might call it that, India had, from the ODI series was the recognition of the gulf that existed between the two teams, especially where bowling was concerned. India went into the ODI series with Ishant Sharma, Mohit Sharma, Umesh Yadav, Bhuvaneshwar Kumar and Mohammed Shami to man the pace attack with only Ishant managing a somewhat respectable 4-for in one of the matches. That in turn proved more to be a bane than boon as it ensured his continued presence in the team for the ensuing test matches where he bowled at a pace noticeably lesser than his partner, 10 years his senior and was unable to extract either bounce or movement from the wicket. As for the others, Bhuvaneshwar Kumar and Mohit hardly found any purchase and while Shami had his brief moments, Umesh Yadav, who was expected to actually do well, given his pace, had very disappointing returns. Umesh Yadav's ineffectiveness in the ODIs he played and his subsequent banishment from the test team, based on the same, rendered the Indian bowling attack pretty much toothless.

An ODI squad to SA with 3 spinners meant that one of them would have lots of time to do shopping and sight-seeing in SA. That "chosen one" was Amit Mishra. The newspapers, particularly, The Hindu, in India hyped up what Ashwin's spin could potentially do in SA. At the end of the ODI series Indian supporters were none the wiser.

The batting in the ODIs was again a disappointment. While it may have been commonsensical to assume that the batting would never touch the lofty heights achieved in the ODI series versus Australia at home; to see it come crashing down in SA was quite underwhelming. There was only one 50+ score by the Indians (MSD's 65 in the first ODI) as against 9 by the Saffers (albeit having an extra innings), and there in lay the story of the ODI series. No points for batting, none for bowling. The fielding looked sharp without being spectacular.

Coming to the test matches, a 1-0 scoreline in a 2 test series is one which is open to many interpretations. However the scoreline could well have been 2-0 had SA not lost their nerve and more while chasing 16 off 19 balls. This was without a doubt one of the greatest escapes in test cricket, in modern times. What this draw did achieve, was to create a "Aisa bhi hota hai" moment for all of us who still haven't understood Dhoni's reasons for refusing to chase 180 in 47 overs versus the WI in 2011.

The test series brought about an overall uptick in performance in all 3 departments of the game. Kohli and Pujara were superb, firmly laying to rest the largely imaginary ghosts of the post Tendulkar-Dravid era. Vijay and Dhawan (although only in the last innings when his position at the top was being questioned) made up with resolve what they lacked in technique. The find of the tour was Ajinkya Rahane. Toting up tons in the domestic circuit, there was still a big question mark as to whether he would be able to adapt to the international arena; which he answered with aplomb. Plucky in the first test and classy in the second it was a treat to see this little man stand up to whatever was thrown at him by the Proteas. Rohit Sharma saw his career average plummet by 77%, and will probably be best remembered for shouldering arms to a ball on the middle stump. While this seemed like a shoo in for "the brain fade" of the series, it was trumped on the very last day of the series by none other than "Sir" Ravindra Jadeja with his wild hoick against Robin Peterson, while trying to save(?) a test match. What really transpired in Jaddu's mind will be one of those unexplained mysteries that will confound Indian cricket lovers for ages to come. There was nothing much to write home about Dhoni's batting and the bowlers made us feel glad that they at least knew which end of the bat to hold.

On the bowling front, spin which was supposed to be our key weapon let out more of a meow than a roar. Ashwin's spin performed wonders in mysterious ways mostly to the detriment of Dhoni and Team India's plans and Jadeja showed that a lack of talent could be compensated by toiling tirelessly.

When it came to the pacers, the "re-assembled in France" Zaheer Khan stayed true to the quality best exemplified by French made automobiles - great in terms of looks but underpowered in terms of performance. Ishant Sharma posed a few questions to the South Africans, most of them to those who were not on the field and had found their calling in hair styling (or is it hair "management" like everything else these days). Mohammed Shami seemed like the only Indian pacer who could shake up the opposition, but with Steyn and Morkel on the other side it was more like a .32 Beretta against the .44 Magnums.

The ground fielding, not the catching though, was quite spectacular. Rahane's run outs of Smith and Du Plessis at key moments in the first test contributed as much to the "Great Escape" alluded to earlier as much as SA's pusillanimity.

Dhoni's captaincy was well "Dhoni-ish" or unimaginative depending on how you choose to call it but it was positively brilliant when compared to that of Graeme Smith in this series.

At the outset a probable 3-0 blank out in the ODIs and a potential 2-0 whitewash in the test series may not really seem to be a cause for celebration, but better things could be in store for Indian cricket if only
a) some fast (not medium pace) bowling support can be unearthed for Shami,
b) someone is able to convince Dhoni of the axiom that 5+0.5+0.5=6; meaning that playing 5 specialist batsmen plus Ashwin and Jadeja will provide the same security as playing 6 batsmen
c) and BCCI is convinced that creating sporting wickets in the domestic tourneys is not really injurious to health.

While this tour cannot be described as an outright disaster as the one to England or Australia in 2012, the batting gains did little to dispel the tag of "poor travellers" that India have zealously cultivated over time.

When I watched Tendulkar and Gavaskar bat together – almost

This happened more than two decades back. I wish I could be more specific about the dates, but am unable to recall it. But then, it hardly matters what the year was, because more than the date and day, it was an opportunity to see what would have then been considered the equivalent of cricketing nirvana - that of watching India's two finest batsmen bat in the same team.

The setting was an improbable one.  The royal house of Udaipur had decided to hold a cricket match to commemorate a landmark date in Udaipur's history - unfortunately, I do not remember whether it was just from Udaipur's incredibly rich heritage or a more mundane cricketing landmark, but either way it was a an event worthy of bringing Sunil Gavaskar and Sachin Tendulkar together in a cricket match.

The ground in question was Udaipur's main cricket field. Set amidst colleges, hostels, playgrounds, basketball courts, football fields, athletic tracks, and the inevitable cricket ground it was billed as a venue capable of hosting international teams and players, and maybe one day an international match as well, an honour it still awaits.

But more specifically, it was built as the coaching camp venue for the Indian team before the 1987 World Cup. India's cricketers did arrive for the camp but found the pitch and the ground neither suitable nor safe to play and practice on.

The less charitable of Udaipur's offended citizenry felt that the wickets and conditions were merely an excuse for the absence of too many options after a day’s play. Whatever the reasons, the camp ended in a hurry, and there were not exactly a lot of displeased people from Udaipur when Gatting and co ended the Indian team's hopes of retaining the World Cup.

It was this ground then that would play host to this commemorative cricket match. A one-day, limited overs game, featuring two of the biggest names in Indian cricket.  The recently retired Sunil Gavaskar, my all time favourite cricketer, and Sachin Tendulkar, then just a young man who was expected to follow in the Little Master’s footsteps and achieve much batting greatness. Maybe Azharuddin and Jadeja were there as well, as was Vinod Kambli - but not being able to recall that for sure is not meant to slight them. It was just that Gavaskar and Tendulkar remained the highlights of that day.

Back then Gavaskar was already a legend of the sport -  a man who, in a more genteel, and cricket-loving world, was admired across the cricket world for his feats of batsmanship and in the aftermath of whose retirement, Indian cricket looked a bit forlorn and lost, in the absence of a batting anchor. But such was the man's draw that even in retirement he was a marquee cricketing name, and people still wanted to see him bat.

Alongside Gavaskar, the big draw - possibly as big, if not yet bigger - was Sachin Tendulkar. Indian cricket's rising star, a batsman whose career was just beginning to take off. Maybe it was the fact that by the time he arrived for that event in Udaipur, that over against Abdul Qadir had already happened, a few other big knocks had already been played, and comparisons with the Don were increasingly common. When Tendulkar headed back into the dressing room after a session of practice on the outfield, he was mobbed for autographs. It took him so much by surprise that he did not seem to know quite how to react, clearly a long way from the great batsman who would draw from that incredible adulation to light up world cricket.

As for the match itself, it looked like just another game of cricket. Batsman, bowlers, fielders, fours, sixes, catches, etc.

As with all such events the highlight from the game was the opportunity to see both Gavaskar and Tendulkar bat – they probably even batted together, though I am ashamed to admit that I am not entirely sure if that was what I actually saw, or it is what I wish I had seen. Some aspects of those two innings remain in memory – a delectable leg glance from Gavaskar which raced away for four, and which will forever remain etched in memory, a couple of sixes from Tendulkar and then the eventual moment when Tendulkar was out. Tendulkar returned to the cheers of those present, who then listened with a mixture of disbelief and wonderment as the youngster seemed to be getting an earful from, presumably, Raj Singh Dungarpur, for not batting longer - yet another of cricket's rituals, where a good batting performance is rewarded with a hauling over the coals for not getting more. There was another innings worth recalling – an innings of eighty-something from a young local batsman, and a fellow member of my school’s district-level inter-school cricket team.

How the match ended, who won, who was man of the match, these details were incidental to the main story - and that is also a pretty handy excuse for not remembering those details.

But the things that remain in memory are that rare glimpse of watching Gavaskar and Tendulkar play in the same team, that leg glance, and the autograph of Sachin Tendulkar which a friend, who was an event volunteer, managed to get me later.

All that happened nearly as long back as when Tendulkar started his career. As he now bids the game adieu, it is great to know that I was among the few who saw him bat all those years, and nearly 200 Test matches, ago!

India's captaincy conundrum

As a busy home season gets underway for India, it has been disheartening to see the team go backwards. As If the twin whitewashes in England and Australia were not bad enough, a home Test series defeat for the first time in 8 years followed by a first ODI home series defeat in three years has actually shown the future to be not only uncertain but bleak too. India continues to be let down by the senior players which has left the youngsters looking confused and the team looking rudderless. India is also struggling to come to terms with the retirements of Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman from tests. Also, Sachin Tendulkar retiring from ODIs has left the team floundering especially in bowler-friendly conditions like in the recent series against Pakistan.

That India is now looking quite inept in all forms of the game should set the alarm bells ringing. One cannot take each defeat in its isolation and convince oneself that it was mostly ill-luck like the 5 minute rain-break in the World T20 before the start of the Australian innings which made it difficult for a wet ball to be gripped by the spinners or the post-tea collapse in the second test at Mumbai against England which ultimately turned the series on its head. Teams unaccustomed to winning tend to lose from any position as they forget the habit of taking control of a game. Everything that can go wrong seems to be for India and no one seems capable to arrest this slide. The blame lies at many doorsteps – the captaincy, the players and the selections. However, while the players (with retirements vacating spots and new talent emerging) and the selections (with some chopping and changing) have started to sort themselves out the question of captaincy remains a vexed one.

The team has stumbled from one defeat to another and inevitably the Captain’s role has to be come under scrutiny and one has to ask if it is time for change and if there are realistically any alternatives available.  The options are limited because India is in transition and that means there are either cricketers who are nearing the end of their careers like Tendulkar and Sehwag or youngsters like Kohli and Pujara. Of the others only Gautam Gambhir and Dhoni could be considered to be in the prime of their careers - with at least 6-7 more years of international cricket still left in them.

Gambhir ought to have been the natural choice to succeed Dhoni in at least one of the formats for India. However, his own recent performances have fallen well short of what he could have delivered. As it is, the pressure of underperforming is playing on his mind which can be seen in some daft shot selections and panicky running between the wickets. Also, Gambhir’s experience as a Captain is not very extensive. His most recent high-profile captaincy stint was leading the Kolkata Knightriders to an IPL triumph earlier this year but that really cannot be a benchmark for leading the national team.  The best player need not be the Captain but a Captain ought to be an automatic selection choice too. For someone who is considered a certainty for India in all three formats Gambhir’s form recently has been patchy at best. His test match average is 28 since the West Indies tour of 2011 while his ODI average is a far healthier 39 since that same tour. However, he does give the impression of someone who is not as sure of himself now as he has been in the past.

On a positive note if there is one thing that Gambhir never seems to be short of it is the intensity. Maybe the additional responsibility of captaincy will get him to channelise the intensity for the team. He has had the experience of international cricket, has done exceedingly well for India at least till the 2011 WC and knows by now the ups and downs a player faces in his career. He is likely to take the Captaincy as additional responsibility but would also be aware of the tremendous opportunity it could be.

If Gambhir is not the choice but India still needs a change at the top the alternative is to throw a youngster into the deep-end. By far, the most suitable from amongst the youngsters is Virat Kohli. Giving a youngster the captaincy is a double-edged sword. While South Africa have gone from strength to strength under Graeme Smith who was made Captain at the very young age of 23 we have seen how Tendulkar struggled to handle the additional responsibility. There is always a danger that a career could be harmed with captaincy which is given too early and right now Kohli along with Cheteshwara Pujara is one of India’s brightest young talents. The ability is certainly there and it is now up to Kohli to translate that into consistent performances especially in the tests. His struggles against England in the recently concluded test series and against Pakistan in the ODIs – both in difficult batting conditions  - showed his batting is still not the finished thing.

Kohli has fair exposure to captaincy having led the Under-19 Indian team to a World Cup win and also captaining the Royal Challengers Bangalore. Again, captaining a u-19 or an IPL team is a completely different ball game to leading the national team.

A losing team always looks a bunch of individuals torn by mistrust and as India has started losing regularly tales of dissent in the team especially involving the high-profile players have surfaced with regularity. There might be absolutely nothing in those except an over-zealous media looking for smoke where there is no fire. However, India would be stepping into unchartered waters if Kohli is made Captain and if the tales of dissent are true then Kohli will be saddled with responsibility without having the seniority to assert himself. The role of the selectors and the board would then become increasingly critical in backing Kohli and getting the errant players to fall in line or face the prospect of being dropped.

Finally, India does have the option of continuing with Dhoni. Maybe a heart-to-heart chat between the Board, the selectors and Dhoni could lead to resolving some issues. The team is going through a phase of rebuilding and it might be unfair to judge Dhoni in this state of flux. However, for this to work Dhoni has to be backed over a period of 12 to 15 months. Give him the XI that he wants and make him an integral part of the rebuilding process so that he is comfortable with the players he picks including a large part of the squad rather than being saddled with a team whose composition which makes him nervous.

No one would like to keep leading a team which loses and Dhoni more than anyone else would be aware that results have to improve. Dhoni might also have realised that a calm exterior is excellent in a pressure-cooker atmosphere like an ODI or a T20 where his calmness can rub off on the fielders and bowlers. However, test cricket needs a more thinking and proactive captain and having seen the past results Dhoni is likely to change the way he approaches it. There were already signs of that change in approach in the test series against England.

These are interesting times for Indian cricket. There is much uncertainty over almost every aspect of the national team and it would be up to a strong leader to pull the team out of this rut like Sourav Ganguly did in 2000 when he took over at the helm.

India steps into uncertain future

About an year back, India's Test match team, spearheaded by its storied batting line up, arrived in England for a four Test series.

At stake was not merely another Test series but India's No.1 ranking in Test cricket. In a somewhat anti-climactic outcome, India lost the Test series 0-4 and, in doing so, surrendered the No.1 ranking to their hosts. Worse followed that eminently forgettable result as the exact same outcome in Australia hastened India's slide in the Test rankings. Soon the highs of the 2011 World Cup had become a distant memory, and the IPL failed to provide any real solace from those defeats. Subsequent lack of success at either the World T20 or the Champions League T20 only served to deepen the gloom.

By the end of 2011 England series, Indian fans have been waiting to return the result when England visited India next, and some measure of that was extracted with a one-sided 5-0 win in the ODI series when England came calling. However, the Test defeat continues to rankle and so the upcoming series is going to be closely watched in the hope that India can get back some of the bragging rights.

But, as management specialists will always say, change is the only constant and the amount of change in Indian cricket since the England and Australia series has been substantial and dramatic. India's strong batting line up has lost two of its three pillars, with the retirement of Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman, and while Sachin Tendulkar continues in the side, age appears to be catching up with the greatest batsman of the modern era.

Inevitably, as it is with Indian cricket, the transition from Dravid-Laxman to a newer generation has been characterised by a lack of clarity about who will fill their shoes. Virat Kohli and Cheteshwar Pujara remain the only names almost certain to retain their places. However, a combination of circumstances - Kohli was around when Dravid and Laxman were playing, so he is not really a replacement, India's quest for batsmen to fill the No.3 and No.7 slots remains an enigma, and the presence of a horde of contenders for these slots such as Rahane, Tiwary, Yuvraj, Raina, Badrinath, Irfan Pathan, Vijay has meant that India's batting, often the difference in all conditions, has an unsettled look about it. In addition, with the exception of Kohli and Pujara, India's batting is hardly looking in the best of health. Sehwag and Gambhir have struggled to provide India strong starts either home or away, and that has often put the rest of the batting on the back foot from the very beginning. Their decline has been most telling in the recent two away series where they average a paltry 13.60 for the first wicket, which has in turn helped the opposition bowling tighten the screws and, as a consequence, yielded a number of sub-par scores.

So, as India enters the England series there is nothing to suggest that the team has the ammunition required to return the 0-4 drubbing to the visitors. In addition, despite losing the top ranking to South Africa, the present England side is no pushover. Not only is this still the No.2 ranked team in Test cricket - hardly the worst ranking in the game - but it would be no exaggeration to contend that England have not fielded such a strong team to an India tour in recent times. And though it looked for a while that the Pietersen stand-off would restrict KP's role to trying to emulate Chris Gayle's rendition of the Gangnam Style dance number, saner counsel prevailed and England's most effective batsman is now back in the fold - even if the use of fancy terms like "reintegration" appears to be no more than a management-like form of eating humble pie. Pietersen's presence lends England's batting some much needed all-weather strength, something which they seemed so sorely lacking in defeats to Pakistan and Sri Lanka not so long ago, even with KP present.

So, while India appear to be well-armed with the right spin weapons - Ashwin and Ojha, with Yuvraj Singh probably solely in to do his pie-chucker number on Pietersen - they are still up against a challenging England team.

However, India's biggest mistake would be to focus too much on the England series alone. While there is no doubt that beating England would be good - from a cricketing perspective and for putting behind the results of the last series between the two teams - India's Test team has more long-term challenges which could be instrumental in determining the long term future of the Test team.

The England series quickly gives way to the visiting Australians, after which India travel to South Africa, their last good overseas result before the defeats in England and Australia.

In that context the England series is the first of several opportunities which the different contenders for vacant batting slots will get to prove their credentials. And the sooner the young batsmen fit into those roles, the better it will be for Indian cricket.

At the same time, though, this is also the time to embark on what promises to be no less challenging an exercise for Indian cricket, and one which has been pushed to the periphery after the retirements of Dravid and Laxman. The series in England and Australia also demonstrated how dangerously low India's stocks of quality bowling options are running. As the statistics show, in the two series India managed 20 wickets in a match just twice, and picked, on average, 8 wickets per innings. The number of big scores - both team and individual - that india conceded in both series was testimony to a bowling line up which lacked penetration.

Considering that India's most effective bowler in recent times, Zaheer Khan, is not too far away from retirement himself and, of the newer crop of bowlers, only Umesh Yadav has looked consistent home and away, it would seem that India's bowling challenges need more attention than the batting. The success of India's Test teams was built around a strong batting line up backed up by a bowling attack which had enough teeth to be competitive - the bowling was led by Anil Kumble and Zaheer Khan, well supported by the likes of Harbhajan Singh, RP Singh, Sreesanth, Irfan Pathan, Ishant Sharma, and provided enough firepower to give India a realistic shot at wins in home conditions and overseas. However, the recent lack of penetration and the struggle to stem the flow of runs or take wickets should cause much concern among those who run Indian cricket. Some alternatives are already available - R Ashwin and Pragyan Ojha, for instance, have been more than a handful for visiting sides, with both the West Indies and New Zealand teams struggling to play them and India will bank heavily on them if they have to win against England. The spin twins, though, have not had the same degree of success away, with Ashwin having a somewhat poorer Australia series than Umesh Yadav. The trio of them - Yadav, Ashwin and Ojha - appear to be the best placed to build upon the initial promise, though it would be risky to focus too much on just these bowlers without developing a full complement of bowlers to call upon as replacements should the need arise. At the same time the more established names - Zaheer Khan and Harbhajan Singh - will continue to have a role in leading the bowling and guiding the next generation, as long as their form and fitness allow them to command a place in the side, for reasons more valid than sentiment alone.

Cliched as it might sound, the fact is that Indian cricket is in the cusp of major change with a real possibility that the bowling and batting line ups an year from now looking very different from an year back - that change is not going to be easy and the results it will yield will not be early enough for many. But as Australia's experience shows, the transition from a strong team to a new one can often be difficult. It requires time and investment, with liberal doses of patience, all of which Indian cricket can afford. England is just the first of several challenges that the new order has to overcome.

Pietersen v ECB - not a zero sum game

Kevin Pietersen has been thrown out of the England test team after reportedly refusing to confirm that the content of text messages he sent South African cricketers was not derogatory to Andrew Strauss or Andy Flower. And, despite much speculation that his value as a cricketer and batsman would far exceed the differences he has had with the ECB, he has been dropped from England's World T20 squad - it was probably to be expected following his omission from England's World T20 "long list", but it still came as a surprise. England are, effectively, seeking to defend their World T20 title without the Player of the Tournament of the last edition, and one of the biggest draws of the IPL - though it might not be mere idle speculation that the latter helped contribute to the current situation.

This latest news is yet another chapter in an often stormy relationship that Pietersen has had with the ECB. Starting with his difficult stint as captain, his twitter rant over being dropped from England's T20 squad and the recent rap on the knuckles for his criticism of Nick Knight, Pietersen has been in the midst of most of the recent controversy in English cricket - only pausing briefly to cede ground to his old teammate, Andrew Flintoff, for an alcohol-fuelled rant regarding Michael Atherton.

While the flap over Pietersen's latest run-in with the ECB is likely to blow over - England's hasty loss of the No.1 standing in Tests to South Africa, the upcoming England contracts process, and the World T20 seem to have enough news value to push Pietersen off the news pages for now - it leaves the average cricket fan with a sense of wonder at how the key people in cricket - players, coaches, boards - stubbornly refuse to learn from the lessons of cricketing history, whether past or recent.

As recently as last month, West Indies cricket welcomed Chris Gayle back to the fold after what seemed like at eternity - but which really lasted around 18 months of international cricket, two editions of the IPL, and one each of the Bangladesh Premier League and the Big Bash League. Gayle spent that time as a T20 specialist, regaling audiences the world over with some truly enjoyable T20 batting - and probably yearning, at the same time, for the adulation that would have been his as a member of the West Indies team. West Indies cricket congratulated itself for being firm in the face of such insubordination - and proceeded to try out a number of cricketers to replace Gayle, with generally little success. The protracted process leading to the eventual patch up left neither side looking good. If there was a lesson in it for cricket as a whole, then the ECB and Pietersen showed that they had not bothered learning from it - a bit like this Dilbert cartoon.

Pietersen's case might well avoid traversing the same path - but, for the present, the parallels are disturbing in their familiarity. Talismanic world-class cricketer, game changer, hugely popular - all these descriptions apply to Pietersen just as easily as they do to Gayle. As does the manner of his ejection.  With his exclusion from the World T20 squad, the possibility of the latest episode in the Pietersen-ECB imbroglio becoming an extended slow motion movie looms large.

Pietersen's case - and that of Gayle before him - also brings into focus the whole question of what matters in cricket. The famous - or notorious, depending on how one sees it - WG Grace is supposed to have once refused to go after being given out by the umpire arguing that people turned up to watch him play, and not to watch the umpire giving him out. Pietersen's recent "I love playing for England and people love watching me play" has shades of that.

There have been a number of articles in the aftermath of the Pietersen-ECB falling out, which have argued that the game of cricket is bigger than the people who play it, and hence Pietersen has no real reason to expect to be treated differently from any other cricketer. There is truth to that - cricket is a team game and no one, not even the likes of Bradman, Tendulkar or Warne, is ever going to be bigger than the game itself. But repeating a truism is hardly the most effective way to address the current mess.

From an outsider's viewpoint it is almost impossible to say what has led to the current  impasse. But the conclusion that the intransigence of all parties is contributing in some way to making resolution that much tougher is inescapable.

Pietersen is by far one the biggest “impact” cricketers England has. His importance to England has been demonstrated several times in the past - whether in the final test of the 2005 Ashes, or the World T20 win, or in his much-lauded innings in what might well turn out to be his last Test for England for a while. On its part the ECB would probably have done better to take note of the concerns of such a key member of the squad. Whether it could have been done without causing a rebellion in the ranks is a matter of conjecture, if not certainty, but it is debatable if such unhappiness would have caused the England cricket team to fall apart - especially after Hugh Morris has so publicly declared unity as being the central theme of the team that Strauss and Flower lead.

For his part, Pietersen would probably do well to take a look at how far greater cricketers have played the game. The likes of Tendulkar, Lara and Warne not only had outstanding career records but also did not carry the baggage of the periodic dust-up which seems a necessary part of the Pietersen-ECB relationship - this despite the fact that the testy relationship Lara shared with WICB came closest to that which Pietersen and the ECB seem to have. Similarly, Warne made no secret of his disregard for John Buchanan. This behaviour has lessons for both the ECB and Pietersen - given that Pietersen is a professional, and the ECB one of the leading cricket boards in the world, it should be possible for both parties to retain a relationship - despite disagreements and dissent - which is for the good for their common cricket interests without needing to rush off to the Press or Youtube or committee meeting rooms at the slightest hint of disagreement.

Pietersen claims that his private discussions with the ECB were finding their way into the open through the media. Such claims are not unusual - Pietersen is neither the first sportsman to make this claim, and he is unlikely to be the last. What is unusual, and possibly disturbing for those that follow and support English cricket, is that there does not seem to be any record of either the ECB or the England team management offering even a token denial, leave alone a vehement one, to counter Pietersen's claim. If that silence amounts to an admission of guilt, Pietersen would appear to have valid reasons to feel aggrieved at the treatment being meted out to him by the ECB.

As Jarrod Kimber argues in this well-written piece disagreement is a given in any workplace - and if the England cricket team were to be considered  a workplace, then  the ECB and the key players in this drama - Pietersen, Flower, Strauss - have a collective responsibility to resolve this jointly.  

Pietersen's absence from the England team might lessen the pressure on their opposition - and Dale Steyn has said as much. He may not even be irreplaceable, though it is doubtful if England will find it just as easy to find a comparable impact player. 

In the final analysis though, England cricket will have to go on - there is still lots of cricket to be played, there are still challenges to be overcome, and there will always be cricketers who will want to play for England and will be good enough to play. But for a marquee player like Pietersen and leading cricket board like the ECB to let things end this way would be tragic for cricket as a sport - and coming not long after the nightmare which was the Stanford saga, it would call into question the managerial abilities of those who run the ECB. It is difficult to see winners in this entire saga which does not need to be the zero sum game it currently appears to be.

Celebrate South Africa’s rise, not England’s decline

The Number One spot in Test match cricket is now South Africa's.

Chasing 346 to win the Test and retain the No.1 ranking, England's spirited fightback would have given Graeme Smith some cause for anxiety. It was however not enough as up against one of the better bowling attacks in the world, consisting of two of the most lethal new ball bowlers in the business, a rookie with a fabulous Test bowling career so far and a veteran who seems to go on and on – with a leg spinner with promise South Africa took the third and final test to seal a supremely dominant 2-0 series win.

South Africa's climb to the top spot in the Test rankings is a well-earned accolade for the seemingly perpetual almost-there team of world cricket.

It will also means that they have overcome their hoodoo of taking the early lead in a series only to let it slip as the series progressed, something that India have benefited from, both home and away, and which helped India retain the No.1 ranking in Test cricket. For South Africa to do so and reach the top of Test cricket in the same series must surely be a sweet moment, for the devils it banishes.

It is a worthwhile achievement for a team, which nowadays looks like it is caught in a time warp of the nice kind – one where its best players from the not-too-distant past have come together with yet another top class group to produce impressive results. Gary Kirsten, whose impressive record as coach – first of a World Cup winning Indian team which was also No.1 in Tests, and now South Africa’s rise to No.1 – tends to overshadow his terrific batting record, works alongside former teammate Allan Donald, who is the bowling coach. Combine the Kirsten-Donald duo with the likes of Smith, Kallis, Steyn, Amla, Morkel and the rest, and you have a South African team which boasts of its best talent of the last two decades. All it probably needs is Jonty Rhodes as fielding coach!

For South Africa, this success comes after some agonising disappointments. Their infamous collapse against New Zealand in the World Cup quarterfinals was an indication of the baffling frailties of one of the strongest teams in world cricket, especially when it comes to the big stage. Now, however, it appears that South Africa have put that behind them to become the truly world leading team they have always been expected to be. South Africa are deserving No.1 in Test cricket.

Since the end of Australian cricket’s golden era, after the 2007 Ashes, rarely has any team looked like dominating world cricket as thoroughly and for as long – South Africa might be the team that comes closest. They have slowly but steadily built a world-class team which has now shown its ability to play in all conditions and turn around any situation.

Their batting has been built around the solidity of Smith, Amla and Kallis while De Villiers has been the flamboyant stroke-player. It says a lot about the strength of this team that a batsman as explosive as AB De Villiers has really not had much to do this series. That batting quality has been complemented by a potent bowling attack led by the redoubtable Dale Steyn, whose bowling pedigree promises to elevate him to all-time greatness by the time he retires. Steyn has displayed tremendous adaptability in all parts of the world and rarely does it look like the conditions affect him - whether Test cricket or the IPL. Every spell seems to be something special and there is a certainty that he will make things happen. That he does all this not only at tremendous speeds but also with marvellous control puts him on par with the legends of fast bowling. Morkel might look the scatter-gun who could get it right but who could get it very wrong too. However, the disconcerting bounce that he gets is enough to unsettle even the best and he seems to be thriving in an atmosphere where he is given the freedom to be an impact bowler. It would be too simplistic to say that the presence of such high quality bowlers makes it easier for a newcomer like Philander. Philander's bowling in the second innings at Lord's coupled with an average of 6 wickets per match is ample proof that his is a very special talent. He still has not visited the subcontinent where lower and slower wickets might not give him as much to work with but his accuracy is impressive and that could be his biggest asset when playing on wickets less suited to fast bowling. South Africa have had less success with their spinning options - the transition from the attritional Paul Harris to the leg spin of Imran Tahir has not yielded the best results, and it probably reflects South Africa's ambivalent approach to their spin bowling line-up.

No team can get results without the right leadership, and it is a role that Graeme Smith performs well. Smith sometimes comes across as a stubborn captain unwilling to deviate from a set script, and as that World Cup match against New Zealand and the defeat to Australia in the two-test series showed, that approach has hurt South Africa at times. However, like all good things he has matured with age and his captaincy calls have been brave and also intelligent as he shown in this series - getting Philander to open the bowling, for instance. Being an opener he has been able to set the tone for his team and the contrast was stark between a confident Smith and an unsure Strauss. South Africa have also shown adaptability as a team - the decision to go with AB de Villiers' part-time wicket keeping skills when faced with Boucher's withdrawal after that sickening eye injury was brave, and has worked well.

And what of England? For cricket fans who have watched England over the years, it has been a story of a team that has often had its share of talented cricketers, professionals who play cricket for a living and who have always been a formidable opponent. That changed during the ‘80s and the ‘90s as England went through a sustained slump with not too many positive results – the one high point was a World Cup final, which they lost to Pakistan. Since those dark days, a number of people have contributed to the revival of England’s Test and ODI fortunes and those efforts culminated in in their ascent to No.1 in both forms of the game, though a World Cup title continues to elude them.

But, to trot out an oft-worn cliché, England have, as the No.1 Test team, struggled to look the part. Maybe it has to do with unease which comes with wearing the crown, maybe the recent Pietersen-ECB spat is symptomatic of the underlying problems which success helped gloss over, or maybe the sustained pressure of performing at a level required to stay No.1 is telling.

Whatever it may be, England’s showing since becoming No.1 has been underwhelming. Now that they have surrendered that ranking a sustained period of analysis – some critical, some honest, some over-the-top – will follow. For, of all the teams that are capable of such public bemoaning of poor results, England comes second only to India.

There will also be no dearth of cricket fans who are waiting with their most withering, most sarcastic remarks to celebrate the fall of England from No.1. In a form of one upmanship that has become a regular feature of world cricket writing, commenting, blogging and tweeting, India’s fans are waiting for pay back – not for the loss of the No.1 ranking in Test cricket, but for an opportunity to give back the criticism that followed India's own loss of the No.1 ranking.

Parallels will be drawn between how long India took to lose the ranking, how England have fared away in the time since they got there, and the inevitable comments about England being home wicket bullies (or as Mark Nicholas called it, a “fortress”) will follow.

There will be much laughing at England’s expense – and even if the England team deserve it or not, the collection of press, fans and others who have celebrated England’s success at India’s expense will have earned their team this derision. But while that might indeed be payback, there is something fundamentally wrong with that approach.

For, the passing of the crown from England to South Africa is to the latter’s credit – it is not merely about England’s failings. South Africa have got to the pinnacle the hard way – by playing consistently good cricket against their opposition, and to succumb to the temptation of gloating over England’s misery would be to do South Africa a disservice. And so, it would be better to celebrate South Africa's ascent to the top of the rankings than take joy in England’s misery. It is not about being noble – it is what the Spirit Of Cricket stands for.

As for South Africa’s success, they will realize, as England have already probably done, and India before them, that staying No.1 is as much a challenge as getting there.

Test cricket is in for interesting times. At present, South Africa and England look like the deserving leaders. Behind them, Australia and India are both grappling with the problems of transition, and doing so inconsistently. Pakistan continue to blow hot and blow cold, while Sri Lanka’s quest for replicating their home success in foreign climes remains their biggest challenge yet – much more so, in fact, than most other teams. West Indies and New Zealand are rebuilding, a process which the former seem to be doing a bit better, if the last series between them is any indication. Bangladesh know that as the clamour for a Test place for Ireland grows, they need to make the transition from being a threat to a winning team.

But whatever the long-term outcome of this joust for top place, South Africa deserve the congratulations that will come their way having arrived at the summit. Any other way of looking at it would not be fair to them.

The BCCI's National Shame

"We do not have fast bowlers in India." a young man, and aspiring fast bowler, at a cricket camp was apparently told when he complained about the quantity and quality of the food being served to him and his fellow fast bowlers at the camp.

The name of the dismissive panjandrum is not worth recalling – for it is people like that who make one marvel that India produces world class cricketers nonetheless.

As for the young wannabe fast bowler, he would go on to indeed become India's first genuine fast bowler, one of the greatest all-rounders in the sport, and, until last year, the only man to lead India to a World Cup win.

Kapil Dev's contributions to Indian cricket made him one of India's greatest players.  Along with the likes of Sunil Gavaskar, Kapil Dev did more than just represent India with distinction - their efforts helped change what it meant to be a cricketer in India.  It would be reasonable to contend that the golden years of Indian cricket - as represented by Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman and Kumble - were inspired, in part, by the achievements of these men. And even if the latter did go on to make being a cricketer by far the most remunerative professional sporting option in India alongside golf and tennis, the change from the days when cricketers were notoriously poorly paid owes much to the feats of Kapil Dev and Sunil Gavaskar, and the generation of players they led.

Kapil Dev represented a new approach to Indian cricket – if the initial days of Indian cricket characterised teams which struggled to win, or even draw, they were then replaced by the MAK Pataudi/ Ajit Wadekar years when Indian cricket began to win, and not just at home, but away as well, when they overcame giants of the sport like West Indies and England. They, in turn, made way for the years when India was led by Bishen Singh Bedi, S Venkataraghavan and eventually Gavaskar – the emphasis on Test match wins remained, but as Gavaskar’s captaincy record shows, the tendency to win a Test and then try to draw the rest of them to win the series dominated India’s approach.

However, India under Kapil Dev, a younger captain with a bolder approach, were more positive in their outlook. Not only did they strive to win more consistently, but they also looked to build upon their successes rather than revert to the more traditional conservative approach. The story goes that in his first series to Pakistan, Kapil Dev, still a young, fiery fast bowler, had no qualms bouncing the strong Pakistani batting line up – represented by some of the biggest batting names of those years – Javed Miandad, Zaheer Abbas, Asif Iqbal, and, of course, Imran Khan.  That story was typically Kapil Dev, at least to the normal Indian fan, whose experience of Test cricket, more than three decades back, was limited to crowding around little transistor sets and trying to imagine the scene that All India Radio’s commentators so vividly described. Kapil Dev, Sunil Gavaskar and others like GR Vishwanath and Mohinder Amarnath were heroes of those pieces, among the handful of truly world class cricketers India then had.

And yet, while India began to belong in international cricket they arrived at the 1983 World Cup anything but favourites. The West Indies were still looking unstoppable, Australia continued to be serious contenders, and Pakistan, who had adapted and understood one-day cricket better than India, were expected to post a challenge. India, though, were not expected to be a major threat, with bookmakers offering generous odds on India winning the title. India started reasonably, beating the defending champions in their opening game, but losses to Australia and the West Indies made their second match against Zimbabwe a must-win game.

However, at 17/5 batting first, yet another loss to a non-Test playing nation loomed, as did exit from the tournament. Kapil Dev, though had different ideas, producing an unbeaten 175, one of India's most memorable one-day knocks and perhaps fittingly, the first ever ODI century by an Indian.  India did enough to win that game, the tide turned, and Kapil Dev led India to a famous World Cup win, but not before he took a fabulous running catch to dismiss a rampaging Viv Richards in the finals at Lord’s. The knock against Zimbabwe and that Richards catch were testimony not just to Kapil Dev as a cricketer, but as an all-rounder to rank among the best that world cricket has seen, and as an athlete, a description which has rarely been applied to India’s cricketers - before Kapil Dev and after as well.

Between that World Cup win, the 434 wickets he took in his career, the 5000+ runs he scored in Tests, and his tremendous commitment to Indian cricket, Kapil Dev earned himself a place in Indian cricket which is as invaluable as it is indisputable.

So how is it that such a fine cricketer, and a man whose success as a world cup winning captain took nearly three decades to be emulated by those that followed him to that role, is not in the BCCI’s list of past cricketers receiving the board’s recent, well meant, financial recognition package that has been delivered to so many of India’s past cricketers?

Rajiv Shukla, IPL Chairman, is on record as having said that Kapil Dev is indeed eligible for the award – what stands in the way of his being able to receive it is the that he has not yet accepted the BCCI’s “amnesty” offer for being associated with the now-defunct Indian Cricket League (ICL).

The stand of the BCCI on this particular issue is untenable on two counts.

One, by treating Kapil Dev’s association with the ICL as an offence for which he needs to accept an offer of “amnesty”, the BCCI is effectively declaring that its own commercial considerations trump any of several cricketing merits of one of India’s greatest cricketers.

And two, by declaring that Kapil Dev would still be eligible for the reward if he were to accept the “amnesty” offer, the BCCI is, effectively, offering to bribe Kapil Dev back into the fold. Irrespective of how remunerative cricket as a career was for Kapil Dev, this bribery is shameful. That it is so blatant only makes it that much more unpalatable.

That Kapil Dev is being denied what he so richly deserves is ironical - India's success at the 1983 World Cup signalled the start of Indian cricket's commercial transformation - which has in turn made the BCCI both rich and powerful.  The need for "amnesty" due to his association with the ICL is even more ironical – the ICL was, after all, the template from which the IPL, the BCCI’s show case event, evolved.  

Whether the BCCI has the courage to set aside its politics and recognise one of India’s finest cricketers, will demonstrate if it truly values the interests of Indian cricket, and how seriously it takes its role as the organisation which has seen Indian cricket from Lala Amarnath to MS Dhoni.

It would not be exaggeration to suggest that the BCCI is the custodian of cricket’s interests in India – and in that sense, it needs to be a more mature organisation than one which is acting as it is.

The current office bearers of the BCCI are just that – they do not represent the past of the BCCI or Indian cricket, nor do they represent its future. Furthermore, Indian cricket is, and will always be, about those who don the India colours and represent the country on the cricket field – the BCCI and its office bearers are not the ones winning India accolades on the cricket pitch. And if indeed the BCCI is serious about honouring and rewarding those that have done so, it should do so without favour, and without letting a commercial grudge override the very contributions it ostensibly seeks to recognise.

India has a history of sports bodies letting down those they are supposed to be nurturing – Indian hockey’s decline, the sorry state of Indian athletics, the national shame that was the Commonwealth Games Organising Committee are excellent case studies that best illustrate this tendency.

But for the BCCI to be able to avoid going the same way, and to assure cricketers that it does genuinely care for them, Kapil Dev needs to be feted and celebrated for his contributions to Indian cricket – anything else would convey the message to all cricketers that they either toe the official line, or risk being treated as pariahs.

Anything else – and that includes statements from the likes of Rajiv Shukla – will be a national shame.