Is Indian cricket going the way of hockey?
Mathew Hayden
Sanath Jayasurya
Sanath Jayasurya
Ricky Ponting
Yuvraj Singh
Keiron Pieterson
Yuvraj Singh
Keiron Pieterson
Andrew Flintoff
Adam Gilchrist
Jacob Oram
Adam Gilchrist
Jacob Oram
Shane Bond
Makhaya Ntini
Mutthaiah Muralidharan
What does the team above tell you? For one, it is a very good team – one that would certainly do extremely well at this world cup (maybe even run Australia very, very close!). Off the top of my head however, this is a team that epitomizes modern day limited-overs cricket. The cricket that oozes POWER from every pore – in a team into which Shahid Afridi, Mark Boucher, Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar failed to make the grade.
One-day cricket today is an explosive combination of the three S’s - Speed, Strength and Stamina. You need to hit the ball harder than Peiterson does, bowl them faster than Shane Bond, be nimbler than a Yuvraj (at his prime), catch as safely as Matt Hayden, have the sustained accuracy of a Murali over long spells and be as pin-point with your throwing as Ponting. Preferably, you have to be able to do many of these things.
Rewind to the mid-70s and the end of the sub-continental domination of hockey began with the introduction of Astroturf. That immediately placed more importance to the physical aspects of the game – faster passing and quicker movement. With power and strength becoming the name of the game in penalty corners as well (with the rule changes), we witnessed the silent cremation of Indian hockey. The phoenix like resurrections during the Moscow Olympics (against a depleted field) and a couple of Champions Trophy triumphs in the 90’s (?) fooled no one. Indian hockey is today well and truly dead and buried – meandering without direction and led by autocrats.
Ditto with tennis – no one has quite managed to recreate the glories of Ramanathan Krishnan, Vijay Amritraj and to a lesser extent Ramesh Krishnan once the wooden racquets died their natural death. Leander Paes was a exception, Sania Mirza is no more than an illusion. Without having at least one of a Sampras-like Server, a motorized Michael Chang-esque court coverage or heavy ground strokes a-la-Nadal, we stand no chance in the modern tennis world. And our players are too “under-developed” for that! A similar tale with football – we were one of the better teams in the 30s and 40s – albeit plating barefoot!
Is cricket going down the same route?
Consider the following:
- In 1999, the South African cricket team was as fit as the rugby team competing in the 1999 Rugby World Cup – (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11138982&dopt=Abstract).
- Witness the bewildering assaults by both the teams in the two most memorable matches between Australia and SA recently (not coincidentally nos 1 and 2). The one in South Africa where the world record for the highest score was broken twice in a day and the more recent World Cup match in the West Indies – the batting was brutal, the bowling ferocious and the fielding electric.
While a Tendulkar, a Dravid and a Ganguly are still likely to win India a test match, they are hopelessly in danger of being dinosaurs in the one-day game. With 20-20 cricket growing in popularity by the day – this emphasis on speed, strength and stamina is only bound to increase (Is that why the BCCI is reluctant to adopt the 20/20 form of the game?). India have to think seriously of shedding some blood and bringing in a more young energetic and fighting unit if they want to withstand the furious pace of the modern one-day game. The game will be one of unrelenting energy for the course of 50 overs, with intensity never wavering. We need younger blood, stronger muscles and steelier minds to combat this insurgency. We need the Rainas, the Sreesanths, the Kaifs and the Uthappas. Let us leave the tried and tested “heros” for the longer version of the game where they can match their wits. Let us adopt the not-very-innovative policy of having a fresh one-day team that bears little resemblance to the test squad and opt for the longer haul.
Makhaya Ntini
Mutthaiah Muralidharan
What does the team above tell you? For one, it is a very good team – one that would certainly do extremely well at this world cup (maybe even run Australia very, very close!). Off the top of my head however, this is a team that epitomizes modern day limited-overs cricket. The cricket that oozes POWER from every pore – in a team into which Shahid Afridi, Mark Boucher, Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar failed to make the grade.
One-day cricket today is an explosive combination of the three S’s - Speed, Strength and Stamina. You need to hit the ball harder than Peiterson does, bowl them faster than Shane Bond, be nimbler than a Yuvraj (at his prime), catch as safely as Matt Hayden, have the sustained accuracy of a Murali over long spells and be as pin-point with your throwing as Ponting. Preferably, you have to be able to do many of these things.
Rewind to the mid-70s and the end of the sub-continental domination of hockey began with the introduction of Astroturf. That immediately placed more importance to the physical aspects of the game – faster passing and quicker movement. With power and strength becoming the name of the game in penalty corners as well (with the rule changes), we witnessed the silent cremation of Indian hockey. The phoenix like resurrections during the Moscow Olympics (against a depleted field) and a couple of Champions Trophy triumphs in the 90’s (?) fooled no one. Indian hockey is today well and truly dead and buried – meandering without direction and led by autocrats.
Ditto with tennis – no one has quite managed to recreate the glories of Ramanathan Krishnan, Vijay Amritraj and to a lesser extent Ramesh Krishnan once the wooden racquets died their natural death. Leander Paes was a exception, Sania Mirza is no more than an illusion. Without having at least one of a Sampras-like Server, a motorized Michael Chang-esque court coverage or heavy ground strokes a-la-Nadal, we stand no chance in the modern tennis world. And our players are too “under-developed” for that! A similar tale with football – we were one of the better teams in the 30s and 40s – albeit plating barefoot!
Is cricket going down the same route?
Consider the following:
- In 1999, the South African cricket team was as fit as the rugby team competing in the 1999 Rugby World Cup – (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11138982&dopt=Abstract).
- Witness the bewildering assaults by both the teams in the two most memorable matches between Australia and SA recently (not coincidentally nos 1 and 2). The one in South Africa where the world record for the highest score was broken twice in a day and the more recent World Cup match in the West Indies – the batting was brutal, the bowling ferocious and the fielding electric.
While a Tendulkar, a Dravid and a Ganguly are still likely to win India a test match, they are hopelessly in danger of being dinosaurs in the one-day game. With 20-20 cricket growing in popularity by the day – this emphasis on speed, strength and stamina is only bound to increase (Is that why the BCCI is reluctant to adopt the 20/20 form of the game?). India have to think seriously of shedding some blood and bringing in a more young energetic and fighting unit if they want to withstand the furious pace of the modern one-day game. The game will be one of unrelenting energy for the course of 50 overs, with intensity never wavering. We need younger blood, stronger muscles and steelier minds to combat this insurgency. We need the Rainas, the Sreesanths, the Kaifs and the Uthappas. Let us leave the tried and tested “heros” for the longer version of the game where they can match their wits. Let us adopt the not-very-innovative policy of having a fresh one-day team that bears little resemblance to the test squad and opt for the longer haul.
We have to heed the clarion call now or face being also-rans in yet another sport.
