India were dismal in Sharjah. And if they are to improve--and by that I mean take some big strides forward rather than just accept the odd success --then things have to change. Not necessarily the team but the entire system.

By Geoffrey Boycott

India were dismal in Sharjah. And if they are to improve-and by that I mean take some big strides forward rather than just accept the odd success--then thintgs have to change. Not necessarily the team but the entire system. Most people--and Indian cricket is guilty of this--are afraid to change because they are comfortable with what they are doing. But nothing in life stays the same. In business, companies are constantly taking a long, hard look at themselves and reorganising, otherwise they get left behind by the competition. Cricket is no different and a bit of soul-searching by the top Indian bosses is necessary.

Regional selection? That's complete, utter nonsense

Everything starts at the top -- that is the Board. It is vital that some former players are appointed as selectors. Guys who understand the modern game and have played recently. There is great value to be gained from people who have played at the international level and understand what to look for in a player when choosing him for the world scene. Judgement is so important.

Get rid of appointing selectors on a regional basis. You can't run a national entity by giving each area a seat on the selection committee. Regional selection is nonsense. A cricket team needs the best man and so does a selection board. If two eminently good people come from the same area, so be it. If there is no one from some regions, too bad. The only criterion should be who is the best man for the job, irrespective of where he lives and who he played for and which association recommended him.

Also, at every international match India plays, at least one selector should be present to see for himself and report back to the others. How else can they do the job properly? Selectors should not decide the fate of the players without seeing for themselves the match circumstances. It has taken the English Board some time to come round to picking a selection committee that is in touch with current trends. Mike Gatting, who is still playing for Middlesex, sees all the players in county matches; Graham Gooch, who was playing this year and has now retired; and David Graveney, who played for Gloucestershire and Durham. They are so much in touch with the present-day game and its players that there is a great chance that intelligent decisions will be made.

Forget it. No way should Tendulkar get a vote

Most countries are coming round to the view that it is better not to make the coach and/or captain part of the selection process. India adheres to this policy and I agree. Captains and coaches are too close to individuals; making judgements on players demands an ability to stand back from it all and be dispassionate. Selectors should have informal discussions with the coach and the captain and then make their decisions without consulting those two.

But the selectors must have a clear idea of their squads for Test and one-day matches. There is a difference in the two types of cricket with some players being good enough for both and some suited only to the longer or shorter version. It is vital that they have a plan -- pick the squads and then don't chop and change unless there are serious losses of form or injury. Every country has lots of goodish players but there only a few who are good enough to play at the top level. So don't mess them about. Stability helps the individuals gel as a unit -- and as a team.

Once you've picked the captain, let him run the ship

I believe in the Australian system of picking the squad and then naming a player who is good enough to be the captain. The English way of naming a captain and the team afterwards has left us with some astounding choices. If Sachin Tendulkar is the preferred choice, then there must be no interference from any selector. That has to be paramount. The captain should have no say in selection, only informal chats with his bosses who in return should "back off" from telling him what to do. Selectors telling Tendulkar to bat in the middle order and not open in one-dayers is nonsense.

Selectors issuing directives to a captain suggests that they have no confidence in the man they have chosen. A captain is the selectors' right arm. If he feels he cannot use his own initiative and make instinctive decisions before and during a match, then he is in a straitjacket -- a puppet of the selectors. He might as well give it up because he is a captain in name only.

If Sachin is to be appointed and carry on in the job, he has to start asserting himself. He is a nice lad, polite and well-mannered and never losing his temper whatever the provocation. But maybe he should get angry now and again. It would be a good thing to give certain players a rollicking provided they deserve it. He has to be boss -- let them know sometimes to pull their socks up or else. Irresponsible, stupid things cannot be allowed to escape a captain's wrath. If nothing is said some players take it as a sign of weakness. I think at times Tendulkar is too nice, too laid-back with individuals. Be more aggressive and less tolerant -- some strong language in the dressing room or on the field might be the shock tactic a few of them need. There are no women or children around in the dressing room or on the field of play, so it's okay. Or as the saying goes, "kick some a..." occasionally. He should be clear and decisive with bowlers regarding field settings and where he expects them to bowl. Sloppy bowling shouldn't be tolerated. It is not enough to have the position of authority. Captains have to lead from the front. That means on the field, not just batting.

Batting order" It's more like disorder

Once the captain has separate squads for both forms of cricket, a settled batting order is a must. The captain must be clear about who his best players are. Some guys will be reserves for when there are injuries or terrible losses of form. Any chopping or changing leads to insecurity. It has been obvious to anyone in Sharjah that the selectors and captain were not on the same wavelength when it came to the batting order -- partly due to Tendulkar being told to bat in the middle order. There must be a plan that everyone understands. The two basic points about batting today in one-day cricket are: one, every team tries to score quickly in the first 15 overs when the field restrictions are on. And two, there are only 50 overs to bat, so it is vital to get your best players in early so that if they bat well they can do so for most of the 50 overs. If they get out then that is cricket but you don't want your best strokeplayers in the pavilion waiting to bat and having to watch lesser players struggling to score or scoring at a modest rate.

That is what India did in their final Sharjah match versus the West Indies. Sidhu is a terrific Test opener, the best in India. Rahul Dravid is a solid, technically correct, fine, young batsman. But neither of them can match Tendulkar and Azharuddin when it comes to brilliant shot-making. Yet Navjot Sidhu and Dravid batted in front of the stroke players when India needed fast scoring. If Tendulkar doesn't open he cannot bat lower than No 3. He must get in early. Saba Karim could open, with Azharuddin at No 4; and Ajay Jadeja must get down the order because he is a marvellous runner between wickets which rotates the strike and he is a tremendous hitter in the last few overs. That leaves one batting place between Vinod Kambli and Dravid. If fast scoring on a good pitch is needed, take Kambli; if the pitch helps the bowler, Dravid.

On the bowling front, it is crazy to keep leaving Venkatesh Prasad out. He is young, talented and bowls well in tandem with Javagal Srinath. When you have a pair of opening bowlers like that you never split them.They are like opening batsmen who get used to each other and bowl well together.

Now we have to consider how we can get a little more out of each individual. There is no doubt that certain players could be fitter and more agile. For example, Sidhu has improved his fielding and that's commendable. But he, Saurav Ganguly, Prasad, Srinath, Abey Kuruvilla and others could do more. This is not meant as a criticism but is aimed at being constructive. If the individuals want to play in a team that wins rather than loses then every bit of improvement matters. One-day matches are won and lost by a few runs and fielding is crucial. The running between wickets needs work also. Too many run outs, not enough quick singles and twos aren't converted into threes. If all this is done well, it puts pressure on the opposition.

A new coach every year is stupid policy

Finally, we have the coaching position. It doesn't help the team to have a different coach every year. Rotating them so that each part of India can provide a former player is no way to provide the team with the best man. You can't run a professional outfit currying favour with each district. The players also know that whatever the coach says or the advice he passes on is only for a year. Then he'll get the sack. Some guys might not bother to listen for that simple reason. You must pick the best man and give him a contract for two or three years. Give him a chance to do a proper job.

India simply have a helluva lot to do, don't they!

Write to us | Subscriptions

© Living Media India Ltd