In English or Bhojpuri Confusion is confusion

Shishir Hattangdi, former Mumbai cricketer wrote in diary in Mid-Day: "One needs to hear these experts and commentators talk about solutions rather than just pointing out the problems".

My question is: Are there any cricket experts left in India? There are no AFS Talyar Khan, K N Prabhu and Sundan Rajan on the scene. Rajan Bala used to write with authority in The Asianage, but now disappeared. Harsha Bhogle and likes are mere commercial writers. Good English, nothing more. The likes of Khalid Ansaris prefer to wear their patriotism on their sleeves rather than writing with journalistic detachment. There are writers like Prem Panicker (rediff.com), very passionate about cricket, hard cricket. Dwarkanath Sanzgiri (Saamna) writes objective pieces in Marathi. Ayaz Memon, sometimes, throws up meaningful analysis. But these are very few in comparison to the cricket craziness of this vast nation.

24 x 7 News Channels have made mockery of cricket journalism. Tens of channels with hundreds of programs without a single knowledgeable cricket correspondent on the scene. They rope in former cricketers (Vinod Kambli as an expert!) who prefer to play to the gallery without being objective in their 'analysis'. TV channels have turned cricket journalism into a filmi gossip avatar.

The result: Too much hype. Megalomania, to use M J Akbar's words.

So which experts Mr. Hattangdi is depending on?

The fact is, Indian cricket's problems lie in what we considered as solutions.

Problem No. 1: Greg Chappel. Why? Because he is Greg Chappel. The moment he signed on the dotted lines of his contract with BCCI, he was made into a celebrity. We thought he was a solution and in the process created a problem. He isn't a bad coach. He clearly had good intentions. We was working hard. But the problem is, in the process, he became the favorite whipping boy of Indian cricket. We blamed him for everything what went wrong and in process forgot to analyse properly. Not entirely his fault, but fault none the less. We simply cannot afford to carry forward this fault.

Problem No. 2: Which is actually, myth no 1. Our perception that we have the best batting line up in the world. We do not. Period. Solution: We do not need best batting line up in the world. We simply want our batsmen to apply themselves.

Problem No. 3: Myth No. 2: Our batting win matches. Basic cricket rules tells us that it is not batting, but bowling which win matches. We can't consistently defy basics of cricket.

Problem No. 4: Fielding. Rahul Dravid said before the world cup that he is aware that our fielding is weak but our batsmen will make up for 30-40 runs we might give up because of bad fielding. Wrong. Batsmen cannot make up for those 30-40 runs. They should not be asked to make up. Fielding is fielding. In modern cricket to be successful the team needs to field well. And there is nothing such as 'smart field placement' with bad fielders. Munaf Patel at covers, as Prem Panicker pointed out, is no smart field placement any way.

Problem No. 5: Middle overs. We play badly in middle overs. We bowl badly, field badly. Give too many singles. We bat badly as well. Lose too many wickets and don't take succeed in taking singles. Modern day one-day matches are won or lost in overs between 20^th to 35^th. We are simply bad in these overs in all department of the game.

Problem No. 6: Our obsession with celebrities. Let me take on the poster boy of cricket celebrities. Sachin Tendulkar. It is high time someone tells him the last match winning innings he has played in line with his reputation (and he has, deservedly, mighty reputation) was way back in 1998 against Australia in Sharjah (Does any one remember Sharjah any more?). Well it was so long ago that a child born then must be on Shivaji Park ground preparing for entry into competitive cricket!

And well, let us make it clear to Irfan Pathans and Mahinder Singh Dhoni or even Yuvraj Singh that they are merely junior cricketers. To become celebrities, there need to be a sustained and consistent performance for years.

Problem No. 7: Too much and too early planning for world cup. For last couple of years it was all about world cup planning and blah blah blah. When the time for world cup came all the planning went for a toss. Nothing explains it more than the confusion the selectors, the coach and the captain were in while selecting world cup eleven.

Greg Chappel gave an interview on the selection to rediff. Good English. So good that I should have actually print it out, went to a beach and read it again and again .. and dream of Rahul Dravid actually lifting the cup, Sachin Tendulkar or Shewag (why not) getting the player of the tournament award and Shrishant getting the best bowler award and Dinesh Karthick on his way to get this years ICC's upcoming cricketer of the year award.

It was so impressive English that Harsha Bhogle went ga ga over it. Here is his take on it: "For the most lucid understanding of the thought behind selecting Indian teams in recent times you need look no further than Greg Chappell's impressive soliloquy on rediff.com. For all of us, passionate, impatient, critical, indulgent followers of Indian cricket, it offers a wonderful insight into decisions we spend hours agonising over. Chappell is articulate and so, the best spokesman for his views, like Chidambaram and Shahrukh Khan tend to be as well. .. There is a feeling of reassurance on reading it. First, the awareness that Chappell is not a whip-cracking ringmaster but one voice in a chorus because clearly Dravid and Vengsarkar have as much to do with this team as Chappell does. . But more important, because you come away with the feeling that the thinking is right. That is half the process of winning; the other is converting that thought into action for the two go together as Tagore told us in his immortal prayer".

Impressive English. My only problem was to judge whose English was better. Chappel's or Harsha's.

Cricket is an English game. But English, even good English, doesn't make good cricket. Good cricket makes good cricket.

As the Indian campaign in the world cup progressed, the good English which impressed so much prior to Dravid's boys played their first world cup match sounded like Bhojpuri once we actually played in the world cup! What lucid understanding? What thought behind selecting Indian team? What wonderful insight? What articulation? What reassurance? What awareness? What right thinking?

Confusion is confusion, whether in English or Bhojpuri.

And confusion is what was dominant in Indian cricket prior to and during the world cup campaign. Nothing explains this more than the fact that we had three tried and tested opening batsmen, who amongst them had played more than 800 matches and scored more than 30,000 runs. But still we were not sure who will open in the world cup; we were not even sure about this just before, what eventually became our last match in the world cup.

Let me put my neck out and say that Rahul Dravid is the best No. 3 batsman around in the world cricket. Saurav Ganguly plays spin better than anyone else in Indian team. Yuvraj Singh is a good finisher. So at least our first five players have been a settled issue. Sachin-Shewag-Dravid-Ganguly-Yuvraj.

This didn't happen, is what in my opinion sums up the mess we created and in process lost out.

Experimentation, which now every little young thing on TV Channels tells us what led us to this mess, was not really bad. It is only that we experimented even with things which should have been considered as settled was the problem. It just went too far ahead and in process shattered many dreams.