Misfit – that would probably be the best way to describe what Greg Chappell was in Indian cricket. No offence to the great cricketer. In fact it is yet another reminder of the sorry state of Indian cricket. 22 months ago, we appointed a man with great cricketing credentials and expected him to work wonders with an under performing team. There was excessive media hype to the extent that one was made to wonder whether the saviour of Indian cricket had arrived. Alas, it all turned out to be a mirage. Team India’s shocking exit from the World Cup opened a whole new Pandora box and Greg Chappell was among those who had to face the wrath in quite a big way. So then, what went wrong? A number of theories have been put out by all and sundry. But the bottomline remains that Chappell’s tenure in Indian cricket turned to a disaster of sorts, not entirely his fault.
After trying out the ‘Wright’ way, Chappell’s appointment as India’s coach must have been to bring more professionalism into Indian cricket if one thinks rationally. But 22 months down the line, Chappell left behind a bunch of guys whose confidence had been shattered and was probably at the lowest ebb. Certainly, this was not what either Chappell or the BCCI, not least of all the Indian public hoped for. But then who is to blame for this situation. Well, the media for one definitely who followed each and every move of his right from the time he arrived to the time he left. He was portrayed as someone who could change the face of Indian cricket, which was never going to be the case since Greg Chappell was nothing more than a coach of a cricket team. And if a captain is only as good as his team, the same applies to the coach too – probably even more since unlike the captain, he cannot control the proceedings once the players take the field.
Greg’s famous brother Ian Chappell has often said that a coach can at the most make a 5% contribution to a team and nothing more than that. The rest is all media hype. Australian opener Matthew Hayden in fact confessed in one of his newspaper columns during their tour here in 2004 that their status gets elevated every time they come to India. Such is the amount of coverage they get. So then the question we need to ask is whether Greg Chappell has contributed anything substantial to Indian cricket. A superficial view and you get no as the instant answer. But look beyond the mundane and you realise that that he has actually shown us where Indian cricket actually stands - a collage of mismanagement that can only lead to hazardous results. Not that we did not know it but keeping in sync with our mentality, we preferred to ignore it.
During the open verbal war of words between Malcolm Speed and Lalit Modi some months back, the former had rightly pointed out that despite being the powerhouse of cricket, the Indians haven’t won a major tournament in two decades. Chappell too pointed out the same when questioned on his inability to bring out the best in Team India. Not that he had a right to give that excuse but it only underlined that Greg Chappell was not the only reason for India’s debacle. The problem was a lot more deep-rooted.
India managed to win the World Cup in 1983 against all the odds. It proved that we are capable of being world-beaters but we haven’t progressed much since. Moreover, the competition at that time wasn’t as fierce and neither was the pressure. As Krish Srikkanth pointed out, they played for the enjoyment of the game. Today it is a profession, a very serious one at that. So things too need to change accordingly. Unfortunately, they haven’t.
Has anybody ever given a thought to the fact that we have been very lucky to discover the Dravids and Tendulkars despite the lack of proper order in place? And that how many more talented cricketers may have languished into wilderness, not being guided in the right direction.
We can’t be blessed every decade to get the likes of Dravids and Tendulkars. This will become very evident once they hang up their boots, which won’t be too long from now. And do we have any replacements in sight? The answer is a plain, straight no. This is where Greg Chappell’s inclination towards grooming youth could have been so handy. To his credit, Chappell has attained some success with youngsters like Sreesanth and Munaf putting their hand up, helping us win a Test series in West Indies after 35 years. Sreesanth went on to star in India’s first ever Test win in South Africa at Johannesburg. Unfortunately many seniors in the team seemed to misinterpret it. Or may be they were worried of their omnipresent stature in the team would be in danger.
Sachin Tendulkar’s remarks on Greg Chappell clearly decipher the difference in mentality between an Indian and an Australian – it’s a perfect case of emotion Vs practicality. If only the Indian legend could understand that emotions don’t win you World Cup, only performances do. No wonder then that he struggled at the World Cup. We chose a team on reputation, whose statistics matched the best in the business but many in the team were well past their prime. For pun value – In 2003 we had ‘Dada’s Army’ and in 2007 we carried the ‘Daddy’s Army’.
Sachin and Kumble are perfect illustrations of two cricketers who looked too old in a young man’s world. Maybe a Suresh Raina would not have scored too many runs either but his fielding skills, which are among the best in the world, could have made a huge impact on India’s fortunes. Don’t people remember Jonty Rhodes of 1992 solely for his brilliant performance in the field? On the spinning front, if anyone deserved to be the first to get a birth on the plane to the Caribbean, it had to be Ramesh Powar as he had outshone both his more experienced compatriots of late. But again the Indian way of working came in the way.
No surprise then that Greg Chappell’s now famous quote “If you want to be like Australia, you can't run your cricket like Zimbabwe” made headlines all over the Indian papers. Rationally speaking it would be very difficult for us to adopt the Australian style of working, considering the demographics of our country. But this is where some of money generated can be pumped in to improve Indian cricket. True it won’t happen overnight but it has to start somewhere and there cannot be a better time since things cannot get any worse for Indian cricket.
While the World Cup debacle and Chappell era might actually prove to be a blessing in disguise, it also has to be said that Chappell has been unfairly credit at times with things he never did, again thanks to the media hype. The 17-match winning streak chasing totals looked great as standalone numbers. But when seen in proper light it shows that most of those wins came on the subcontinent, where we have been doing reasonably well anyways. The same bunch of youngsters like Dhoni, Raina, Pathan, who were the star performers during India’s so called brief golden period, came unstuck away from home.
Irfan Pathan has probably been the biggest one to suffer under the Chappell regime since he went from being India’s strike bowler to an enigma in Indian cricket. So much so that he was sent back midway through the tour of South Africa. Chappell may have had the right intentions of turning Pathan into an all-rounder but in hindsight, he was pushed too much too early. A look at the career graph of all the genuine all-rounders in modern cricket will tell you that everyone from Chris Cairns to Jacques Kallis to Andrew Flintoff have gradually worked their way up and matured with age. Pathan should have been asked to work on his batting abilities simultaneously along with spearheading the bowling but to expect him to shoulder the burden of an all-rounder at a relatively raw age was just not justified. And we have seen that the results proved to be catastrophic for both Pathan and Indian cricket.
Ironic as it may sound, the biggest beneficiary of Chappell’s no holds barred approach to coaching was Sourav Ganguly. It was no secret that Ganguly had long been holding his place in the side solely on the basis of his captaincy. So it was about time he was given a wake up call. The whole Zimbabwe fiasco was blown out of proportion by the media again. But at the end of the day, Indian cricket was richer since Sourav came back a better, much improved player. If only Sehwag was given the same shock treatment at the right time instead of hiding his shortfalls under the guise of natural talent.
Having said that if stories of Chappell sending out SMSes to journalist friends and leaking information are true then he was definitely in the wrong and played his part in making Indian cricket murkier, as if there wasn’t enough bad already happening. But he did one thing right, which even the Chairman of selectors Dilip Vengsarkar was guilty of – not disclosing his displeasure with the team selected for the World Cup in public despite not being completely pleased with the side. He was aware that it wouldn’t make a difference since the team was already chosen. One wonders then what was the logic behind Vengsarkar coming out in open saying that Sehwag made the team only because of Dravid’s insistence. This irresponsible statement coming just prior to India’s campaign in the World Cup was about to begin.
Further there were comments emanating from the cricket board that Greg Chappell’s Vision 2007 was blurred after the World Cup debacle. If they felt so, then wonder what made them go along with him. Well, to put it simply, there is a ‘story’ behind every success and there are ‘stories’ behind every failure. Once we lost, it was to be expected that ample of excuses would have to be prepared – be it the Chappell Vision or the tournament format.
To sum up what the Greg Chappell era meant to Indian cricket, it would be apt to quote Sanjay Manjrekar. “Greg’s greatest contribution was showing Indian cricket the mirror.” It’s up to us now whether we want to look into it and try and move towards a change or continue to live in our dreamy world hoping for miracles to happen.
If the latter is true, then God save Indian cricket from sinking further down the drain.
After trying out the ‘Wright’ way, Chappell’s appointment as India’s coach must have been to bring more professionalism into Indian cricket if one thinks rationally. But 22 months down the line, Chappell left behind a bunch of guys whose confidence had been shattered and was probably at the lowest ebb. Certainly, this was not what either Chappell or the BCCI, not least of all the Indian public hoped for. But then who is to blame for this situation. Well, the media for one definitely who followed each and every move of his right from the time he arrived to the time he left. He was portrayed as someone who could change the face of Indian cricket, which was never going to be the case since Greg Chappell was nothing more than a coach of a cricket team. And if a captain is only as good as his team, the same applies to the coach too – probably even more since unlike the captain, he cannot control the proceedings once the players take the field.
Greg’s famous brother Ian Chappell has often said that a coach can at the most make a 5% contribution to a team and nothing more than that. The rest is all media hype. Australian opener Matthew Hayden in fact confessed in one of his newspaper columns during their tour here in 2004 that their status gets elevated every time they come to India. Such is the amount of coverage they get. So then the question we need to ask is whether Greg Chappell has contributed anything substantial to Indian cricket. A superficial view and you get no as the instant answer. But look beyond the mundane and you realise that that he has actually shown us where Indian cricket actually stands - a collage of mismanagement that can only lead to hazardous results. Not that we did not know it but keeping in sync with our mentality, we preferred to ignore it.
During the open verbal war of words between Malcolm Speed and Lalit Modi some months back, the former had rightly pointed out that despite being the powerhouse of cricket, the Indians haven’t won a major tournament in two decades. Chappell too pointed out the same when questioned on his inability to bring out the best in Team India. Not that he had a right to give that excuse but it only underlined that Greg Chappell was not the only reason for India’s debacle. The problem was a lot more deep-rooted.
India managed to win the World Cup in 1983 against all the odds. It proved that we are capable of being world-beaters but we haven’t progressed much since. Moreover, the competition at that time wasn’t as fierce and neither was the pressure. As Krish Srikkanth pointed out, they played for the enjoyment of the game. Today it is a profession, a very serious one at that. So things too need to change accordingly. Unfortunately, they haven’t.
Has anybody ever given a thought to the fact that we have been very lucky to discover the Dravids and Tendulkars despite the lack of proper order in place? And that how many more talented cricketers may have languished into wilderness, not being guided in the right direction.
We can’t be blessed every decade to get the likes of Dravids and Tendulkars. This will become very evident once they hang up their boots, which won’t be too long from now. And do we have any replacements in sight? The answer is a plain, straight no. This is where Greg Chappell’s inclination towards grooming youth could have been so handy. To his credit, Chappell has attained some success with youngsters like Sreesanth and Munaf putting their hand up, helping us win a Test series in West Indies after 35 years. Sreesanth went on to star in India’s first ever Test win in South Africa at Johannesburg. Unfortunately many seniors in the team seemed to misinterpret it. Or may be they were worried of their omnipresent stature in the team would be in danger.
Sachin Tendulkar’s remarks on Greg Chappell clearly decipher the difference in mentality between an Indian and an Australian – it’s a perfect case of emotion Vs practicality. If only the Indian legend could understand that emotions don’t win you World Cup, only performances do. No wonder then that he struggled at the World Cup. We chose a team on reputation, whose statistics matched the best in the business but many in the team were well past their prime. For pun value – In 2003 we had ‘Dada’s Army’ and in 2007 we carried the ‘Daddy’s Army’.
Sachin and Kumble are perfect illustrations of two cricketers who looked too old in a young man’s world. Maybe a Suresh Raina would not have scored too many runs either but his fielding skills, which are among the best in the world, could have made a huge impact on India’s fortunes. Don’t people remember Jonty Rhodes of 1992 solely for his brilliant performance in the field? On the spinning front, if anyone deserved to be the first to get a birth on the plane to the Caribbean, it had to be Ramesh Powar as he had outshone both his more experienced compatriots of late. But again the Indian way of working came in the way.
No surprise then that Greg Chappell’s now famous quote “If you want to be like Australia, you can't run your cricket like Zimbabwe” made headlines all over the Indian papers. Rationally speaking it would be very difficult for us to adopt the Australian style of working, considering the demographics of our country. But this is where some of money generated can be pumped in to improve Indian cricket. True it won’t happen overnight but it has to start somewhere and there cannot be a better time since things cannot get any worse for Indian cricket.
While the World Cup debacle and Chappell era might actually prove to be a blessing in disguise, it also has to be said that Chappell has been unfairly credit at times with things he never did, again thanks to the media hype. The 17-match winning streak chasing totals looked great as standalone numbers. But when seen in proper light it shows that most of those wins came on the subcontinent, where we have been doing reasonably well anyways. The same bunch of youngsters like Dhoni, Raina, Pathan, who were the star performers during India’s so called brief golden period, came unstuck away from home.
Irfan Pathan has probably been the biggest one to suffer under the Chappell regime since he went from being India’s strike bowler to an enigma in Indian cricket. So much so that he was sent back midway through the tour of South Africa. Chappell may have had the right intentions of turning Pathan into an all-rounder but in hindsight, he was pushed too much too early. A look at the career graph of all the genuine all-rounders in modern cricket will tell you that everyone from Chris Cairns to Jacques Kallis to Andrew Flintoff have gradually worked their way up and matured with age. Pathan should have been asked to work on his batting abilities simultaneously along with spearheading the bowling but to expect him to shoulder the burden of an all-rounder at a relatively raw age was just not justified. And we have seen that the results proved to be catastrophic for both Pathan and Indian cricket.
Ironic as it may sound, the biggest beneficiary of Chappell’s no holds barred approach to coaching was Sourav Ganguly. It was no secret that Ganguly had long been holding his place in the side solely on the basis of his captaincy. So it was about time he was given a wake up call. The whole Zimbabwe fiasco was blown out of proportion by the media again. But at the end of the day, Indian cricket was richer since Sourav came back a better, much improved player. If only Sehwag was given the same shock treatment at the right time instead of hiding his shortfalls under the guise of natural talent.
Having said that if stories of Chappell sending out SMSes to journalist friends and leaking information are true then he was definitely in the wrong and played his part in making Indian cricket murkier, as if there wasn’t enough bad already happening. But he did one thing right, which even the Chairman of selectors Dilip Vengsarkar was guilty of – not disclosing his displeasure with the team selected for the World Cup in public despite not being completely pleased with the side. He was aware that it wouldn’t make a difference since the team was already chosen. One wonders then what was the logic behind Vengsarkar coming out in open saying that Sehwag made the team only because of Dravid’s insistence. This irresponsible statement coming just prior to India’s campaign in the World Cup was about to begin.
Further there were comments emanating from the cricket board that Greg Chappell’s Vision 2007 was blurred after the World Cup debacle. If they felt so, then wonder what made them go along with him. Well, to put it simply, there is a ‘story’ behind every success and there are ‘stories’ behind every failure. Once we lost, it was to be expected that ample of excuses would have to be prepared – be it the Chappell Vision or the tournament format.
To sum up what the Greg Chappell era meant to Indian cricket, it would be apt to quote Sanjay Manjrekar. “Greg’s greatest contribution was showing Indian cricket the mirror.” It’s up to us now whether we want to look into it and try and move towards a change or continue to live in our dreamy world hoping for miracles to happen.
If the latter is true, then God save Indian cricket from sinking further down the drain.
Chappell as India coach
Test record as coach: Played 18, won seven, lost four ODI record: Played 62, won 32, lost 27
No comments:
Post a Comment