Selective Amnesia There was a point to this. But I forgot.

Cricket scenario in India-Cancer in the Team

It had always been said that an individual is like a cell. When the cell is having its regular growth, the organ thrives (like kidney, heart, skin or stomach), and the whole system is healthy. There is a perfect co-operation between the cell, the organ and the Body. If the cell is cancerous, then there is an ultimate death of the body. In cricket world, I consider the Player the Cell, The Team the Organ and the country’s reputation the body. If the player wants to grow faster than the team (with personal performance ruling higher than the teams objectives), then the team and the country will face disasters.

Have we ever thought, that three Indians are among the top 10 batsmen of the world while how many South Africans, or New Zealanders appear in the rating. SA is number two in the ranking and India number 7. India has Tendulkar-wonderkid, Dravid-the wall but what have we achieved. Nothing. The individual- multi billion on Ad sponsorships. ( A small digression that this achievement goes exactly similar to the Board’s philosophy of earning money only and not caring for the Country’s prestige or reputation. No other Board in any other country would be silent enough to push our players for match after match- irrespective of Huge punishments/ fines to Indian players for trivial offences while allowing Aussies and English to go scot free despite severe blows in the field. If the board protests, how can I be an ICC president? The colonial rules still continue in India even after 60 years of freedom)

That is, the individual excellence alone does not contribute to the Team’s success. Why go to international level. Railways, the Ranji Trophy victors during the last two seasons do not have one single star. (JP Yadav just got selected this season). How is it, that, they are winning without Gangulys, Dravids, Bajjis or Pathans. One should ponder this, and more so the Cricket Board officials.

Years ago, my mother told me once, the story of three daughter-in-laws in a house, and I feel that it is appropriate in present context of Indian Cricket, Organisational behaviour and also in Humar resources appraisal in companies.
The story:
A well organised mother in law (CEO) had given individual KRA’s ( Key-result-Areas, or Job Responsibilities) to her three daughter in laws. The first one would Ready the dining environments like providing Clean Plate, water and Clean Place. The second one is to attend to food-cooking and serving. The third KRA is to clean the place, that is, the dinner set should go back to the shelves clean , and the dining Table must be kept clean. When once a visitor visited the house, as the mother in law is a perfect leader and had delegated /empowered her daughter-in- laws, she was watching them with occasional visits and was appraising their performances. According to her evaluation, each one of them had fulfilled their respective KRAs exceptionally well, and they deserved 100% increments. However, the Guest who came, went Hungry and while going cursed the mother-in-Law that he would never come back to the house any more. WHAT WENT WRONG? Neither the Mother-in-law- knows and so also our Cricket Team Selectors. The three daughter in laws did their job excellently, without bothering their system responsibility that the Guest must feel satisfied. They missed out on the link responsibility that , the food must be served after the guest sits in his place, and that the plate must be removed only after the Guest had finished eating. Yes, you have guessed right as to what happened. The first Daughter-in-law chose the most wonderful silver ware, cleaned them well personally and ensured that the dining Table was spic and span with clean glass of good water. The second one made a mouth watering feast and served the plate without seeing whether the guest was there or not. The third one came whizzing past and removes the plate, Glass of water and restored the plate back in the shelf after using the best of detergent and silk cloth to wipe it dry. The guest who had just come to the table to eat was invited by a clean dining table and all the three daughter-in-laws huddled behind the kitchen door. He waited for few minutes and with no sign of the food or the people, and he left the house in anger.

The selectors select the team by the data on performances only. (However, getting a good performance is a different topic altogether, that if you continue to sponsor somebody for a number of matches the player is going to have impressive record by means of “Law of Averages”.The law of averages come handy while dropping Balajis, Badanis, Rameshs as against Agarkars or Laxmans. The selectors are very kind towards budding talents like Kumarans who just go for a sight seeing Trip and come back with no claim for the second chance.) But the performance is just sufficient, even if , our batsmen are intent on scoring their statistical tons, or in maintaining the wall reputation despite the need of scoring more than six-runs per over. The last series in India, against Pakistanis should be an eye opener to all of us. Every Pakistani batsman , despite losing wickets, were bent on achieving a strike rate of more than 100 or least 90. At times, it appears that our heroes set a target for themselves and play within that, instead of the urge to go up-and up. If only we have had Vijay Singhanias in our cricket team…..Why Tendulkar or Dravid can not break away from their routine and go all out to stretch beyond their normal or standard batting. The ODIs against Pakistan was lost not by Gangulys or Yuvarajs or Kaifs but by Tendulkar and Dravid who were more concerned with their personal reputation than the need of the hour. A leader is the one who is not expected to do different things, but do the routine things differently.

A strike rate of 80% would mean that the team could score a maximum of 240 runs in 50 overs. This is not sufficient. We need 300 plus or minus 20. That means every batsman must attempt a consistent strike rate of 80+ right from their first ball. Can not the pair in the middle maintain a small finger count as to whether they have taken a minimum 4 singles in a given over with occasional twos or fours as Bonuses. There is no point in building pressure, by building a wall; slowing down to complete my 1200th half century ; having failed the last five occasions let me graft in this match to score my 30 in 80 balls attitudes of our senior cricketers. However , we in the horizon budding stars like Yuvaraj, Kaif, Dhoni, Pathan and their ilks who come determined to play an ODI in the way it must be played. But let them not get negative learning from our Laxmans, Dravids or Tendulkars.

The selectors should keep the individual’s performance as a secondary tool to appraise. They should have statistics like the striking rate with almost a smooth line hovering around 80~85, right from ball one to the last ball the batsman has played. If the striking rate dips for any period for over four overs for an individual then it is a negative point. A batsman however big his the reputation should be evaluated on this basis. This methodology would motivate our players to score singles, keep the batting in rotation and this would upset the rhythm of the bowling style. The key to success is your ability to perform the unpredictable, and if you fall into a pattern the opponents can catch you without fail by setting a predictable trap. Foot ballers used to mark and shadow the star opponents and not allowing them the elbow room Thus our players should not allow the bowlers to settle and must score 0ne from each ball- nibble on the left , cut on the right with key objective of placements. This could be possible only when our Selectors start thinking on the players contribution to the team and not merely their individual performance. If both the personal performance and the team objectives go together we will be on top again.

Similarly, the bowlers are to be judged not on wickets taken alone, but on the number of dot balls they bowl in an over, the number of balls bowled within the stump region without allowing space for the batsman to score. A lesson our bowlers should learn from Pollock. He does not carry the reputation of Bret Lee or Shane Warne or McGrath. But he is the most productive and a match winner with a disciplined bowling.