Why has India never dominated the cricketing world over a period of time?
This a question I often ask myself. It is only common sense that India should be the team that sets the standards in cricket. After all it is backed by the richest board in the world who happens to hold the ICC under it's sway, and the talent pool found in India is so vast. The population of India is a billion while Australia has only 20 million people. Therefore India practically has 50 times more talent pool than Australia and also the money to properly cultivate that talent. In India, cricket alone dominates sports and is followed like a religion, but in Australia cricket has to compete with other sports such as rugby, and football. Despite the straight forward advantages India, has failed to dominate cricket over a period of time.
I analysed the causes and was surprised at some of the reasons.
The main reason I say that India is not like the West Indian team of the 60's and 70's is because of flawed domestic structure. I don't mean to criticize the structure itself. The domestic structure is sound, but the running of it isn't. Most of the times selection is based on 'influences' rather than performances. In some cases the selection is even rigged. But in the past decade, the Indian structure has got a lot of attention from corporate businesses and rigging of selection is not so prevalent as before. The IPL has surely helped this, but still it exists. Also another saddening thing about the administration of cricket in India is the amount amount of politics that exists. Many decisions not are based on sound cricketing knowledge but politics. Board room politics is synonymous with the BCCI. The Pawar-Dalmiya fall out is a clear example to this. This is definitely not good for the game.
Also the coaching system in India is not the greatest when compared to other countries. Many rural areas in India are still not reached while others still lack basic cricket facilities. I also feel that fitness and fielding is not emphasized enough at the beginning stages. The quality of coaching is a worry. But the good thing is that we see parents encourage more children into cricket nowadays due to the money involved in it. Even if a player doesn't reach the international or national arena, he is guaranteed to earn decent money playing cricket for clubs and teams in the 2nd division. Also the standard of cricket in the Ranji trophy needs to improve. The transition level between a Ranji trophy match and a International match is too high unlike the Australian domestic structure which is very much equally contested as an International match.
Another reason I feel is due to the fact that India lack the self belief that every game they play they will win. The teams that had Vivian Richard, Micheal Holding, Steve Waugh, Shane Warne went into every match believing that it was theirs for the taking. And they were expected to win every time they stepped into the field. But India lacks that belief specially when touring. India at home, believes that they are invincible and are very tough team to compete with. The 2001 test series against the Australian's bears this fact as India came back from behind to script history. When touring this self belief seems to suddenly disappear. John Wright, former Indian coach describes a scenario to explain this. He says that the Indian team when playing in India is not bothered about anything. Even if they are 20 for 3, they know they'll play well, but when touring that belief disappears and if the scoreboard reads 30 for 2, shock waves run through the dressing room and the panic button is pressed. This is clearly a lack of self confidence and belief. But in the last decade or so, India under Azharuddin, Ganguly, Dravid, Kumble and now Dhoni have defied the trend and have started to win matches overseas. A new generation of cricketers who play aggressive and competitive cricket have evolved. The public and the team is no more satisfied with a draw match overseas.
India entered cricket late, and this is a certain set back. Teams such as England, and Australia have been for more than a century and they enjoy a certain 'legacy' and the country's and the board's have had more time to promote the game. Another team with this distinct set back is South Africa. They entered cricket a little late only to be banned later.
India is also a team studded with talented players such as Dravid, Azharuddin, Kumble, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman, Jadeja, Javagal Srinath that can easily compete with Ponting, Border, Richard, Waugh any day. Young players such as Dhoni, Yuvraj, Harbhajan, Sehwag, Gambhir can also be added to the list. The team has never lacked talent but has lacked more often in the past to play to the full potential of their talents. The New Zealand team is not star studded like India, but they perform well, because their 'whole is larger than the parts' mantra. India in the last decade has started to instill this team spirit and now it can be seen clearly. But still India has a long way to go. A lone warrior in Tendulkar or Dravid fighting alone to salvage some pride is all past.
These are some of the satisfying reasons that I came up with to answer the question that has haunted me in the past and does even now. Hopefully that question in the near future would become 'What took India so long to dominate world cricket?'. Surely that day is not far off, and the 100th test win is just another sign that a new world order is arriving.
7 Comments:
Christopher, this is an interesting topic.
India was not a rich board till only a decade and a half ago. Modern coaching methods are only about a decade old for the senior team. So it is a surprisingly short term for India to have achieved the level it has. I am actually in wonderment...for it unlocks a new world to me. A world which reveals that, Indians, if able to access the best and have the resources to do so, can achieve much within India itself.
Social consciousness towards sports has also undergone a recent change - parents now do not mind as much encouraging children to take up sport as a career if he/she so likes.
Credit for that has to be collective and not just limited to cricket even though it continues to be the best option. The exploits of Paes first and then joined by Bhupathi, Vishy Anand along with Sachin Tendulkar unlocked some fences in India.
They were followed by many more. The roles of Malleswari, PT Usha, Gopichand, Baichung Bhutia must not be forgotten.
All this has brought parents to look upon sports as a viable way of leading a life in India for their children.
The change in economy through the nineties, the opening of the world to India in larger numbers, the greater access to support by sportspersons from small city and rural backgrounds has changed the way thigs are looked at now.
Satellite TV has brought to every home awareness of sport per se. A child now thnks, "Hey! I can do that!" And parents are more willing than before to help their children along that path.
These things have provoked the stolid elephant that Indian sports was to change its habits a bit.
Of course, all that you say is also true. It shows what needs to be done in future...what remains.
Cricket even 30 years ago was absolutely amateurish in comparison to today. Sunny Gavaskar had to fight hard to earn a few thousand rupees to supplement the few hundreds he'd get for a match by writing articles and taking up rare ad assignments.
Life was not easy for a sportsperson. Even though so many followed sport in India, it was never looked upon as a sensible thing to do in life.
Patronage has been important in keeping sports alive. Jobs with govt and public sectors for example. naturally that would bring politics in. Today it is possible for an average man to leverage his presence in a manner the most talented could not back then.
My view in a nutshell is mere money and talent are not enough. You have to put in place a system where money is used to put in place a system that would groom the talent for international level. Also important is exposure, rehab, guidance and a long-term view of things. You have to identify a pool, take their care 24x7 so that they are not lost to injuries, distractions or other things. You need a bunch of coaches who would work on their game. And regularly send them abrod to play and gain confidence.
The main problem with the Indian team over a decade or so has been consistency and dedication. And this is what actually helped Aussies to dominate the world rankings for so long. Every now and then, just when India wins 2-3 games on trot or even the whole series, they crash down badly. India has been always coming with loads of talented players. Yet they fail to do well consistently just after they sign up for some advertisements.
P.S. - Added Poshin's World to my blogroll.
@Soulberry,
I agree with you mate. Cricket in india has been a slow process and has only caught like wild fire in the last decade with tv viewings.
And with the money now involved you are right in saying that parents now encourage children to play cricket. I remember writing about this once and Harsha Bhoggle commented... Click here to see the post
Cheers;
@Som,
I agree that money and talent alone is not enough. I did write about the way things are run in India and heavily did fire at it in my article. But with IPL and more money involved things are improving I say. But the pitches must also improve I feel....
@ Rishabh,
Yes i agree, the dedication and commitment of india was no where near the Australians. Even now The ODI team lacks consistency. It is a major problem with the Indian team that needs to be addressed.
Free Watch online Live Cricket Streaming, Online Score and much more
Best regards.
http://www.livecricket.pk
Post a Comment
Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted but to weigh and consider.
- Francis Bacon