It's time for me to come up a verbose and rambling Indian-cricket post-series post.
As always, it is to help organise my own thoughts, so please humour me and interject
when you see inconsistencies
On Choking
First it was rusty, now it is chokers. To see the influence of the media
in everyday life, you just have to pay attention to these words. Suddenly everyone
starts to use them. They're on our lips and in the newsprint.
So I thought it would be instructive to try and understand what the word "choker"
really meant.
My OED does not define the word in a sporting context, so let me try and explain what
it means to me. I have always held the word "choking" to express the condition wherein
a team or a player who is in a good position to win a match inexplicably loses it,
mainly because a state of mental panic and loss of equilibrium. This does not cover those
cases wherein he/the team is *outplayed*. I may be indulging in some semantic pedantry
here, but I don't see how else choking can be outlined. I have the following examples
for this definition:
* Jana Novotna contriving to lose to Steffi Graf in the Wimbledon Final (I have forgotten
the year - Anand or Harish, please fill in for me - was it 1993?)
* South Africa's famous Tied match in the '99 World Cup semis with Australia
* Some of the England football matches in major championships
* India's 2nd innings vs Pakistan in the 1999 Chennai Test
You may have experienced signs of "choking" personally as well, I certainly have -
blowing it in tests and interviews inspite of knowing the answers.
By this token, was Sunday's defeat by Sri Lanka a result of "choking"? I for one
don't think so. India were clearly outplayed in several aspects. More on that later.
If you pay attention to media coverage (which ends up influencing the way we think
and opine on this matter), it is very India-centric. It is "India who choked" or
"India who were outstanding" or "India must be wary Vaas and Murali" or "India
played loose cricket" all the time. On very few occasions do commentators and
opinion makers focus on the other teams (except maybe when Australia are involved)
and how what those teams do impact the way the Indians play. Perhaps that
wasn't quite clear. What I'm trying to say is that the thrust of the coverage
provides the active voice to the Indians and the passive voice to the opposition.
I am not suggesting that this is limited only to the Indian media (or India-associated
media, for foreign commentators have learned many easy ways to ingratiate
themselves with Indian viewers) - if you follow the Sky coverage of the English
team, the dronings of Bob Willis & Co. are equally similar. (The Aussies as well, though
of late, Mark Taylor & Ian Healy seem to be taking a more pluralistic stance than
Lawry and Greig - IMHO.)
Perspective
This kind of focus is understandable, given the hungry nature of the audience. But this
coverage builds the underlying assumption that each time the Indian team is
superior to the opposition and they themselves decide whether they win or lose.
So when we win, we did so because we were inherently better and had to win to
prove our potential. But when we lose, we must have choked or played really below our
potential - the opposition couldn't have won it on their own, we must have gifted
it to them somehow. This feeling has crept in our minds and is here to stay. This is
so very reminiscent of the English football fans at times - "It is the world that wrongs
us all the time".
Not to say that we don't have a good team for again facts would disprove any attempts
to radically swing to the other extreme. However, thinking of the team as the #2 in
the world is also not borne out by facts. I personally had thought that we ought to
have been #3 or #4 in ODIs, at any rate higher than #5, but I think #5 is a good indication
of where we are at the moment.
Let me pause here to note that I think the ODI ratings would be more meaningful
if as an exercise, we were to have separate ratings for different conditions as they
make such a big difference. The following is a crude exercise based only on limited
intuition rather than fact and considers only the 8 nations of Aus, NZ, Eng, SL, Ind, Pak
SA and WI being relevant. Also, this is on current form.
On Subcontinental wickets:
1. Aus, SL, Pak, Ind (Pak & Ind perhaps a rung lower given current form)
2. SA, NZ
3. WI, Eng
In swinging conditions (i.e. Eng or NZ):
1. Aus, Eng, NZ
2. Ind, Pak, WI, SA
3. SL
In bouncier/truer wickets (i.e. Aus or SA):
1. Aus, Ind, NZ, SA
2. Pak, SA, WI, SL
Looking at the above, the overall ranking would see:
1. Aus
2. NZ, SA
3. Eng, Ind, Pak, SL (mostly given their subcontinental form)
4. WI
(There isn't much to separate the 5 teams from the bottom).
Put in proper perspective, SL were always going to be fancied to win at home
on those tracks. But people are so surprised and angry that India lost to them.
This I attribute to a media fuelled hype in this tournament.
Professionalism
I think this is team is as professional an outfit as we have ever seen. I'm sure
like true pros, they will go back and analyse their current shortcomings instead
of ascribing their losses to unreasonable and immature causes. Ganguly's postmatch
comments clearly show that they are being reasonable about this. To us spectators
I offer this: do we display this wild immaturity when we err in our professional
lives? One should have thought that years of sports-watching would have taught
us to discern somewhat. But we can't even resist simple media manipulation.
For instance, today's TOI has a column blasting half the Indian team in words that
are pure rants. I have long ceased to expect analysis there amidst all the sponsored
columns, but this one was too bad. Bad because the same pages have laudatory
homages most other times. I guess it is time we became more professional
as spectators as well.
I personally have a tendency (like BVHK) to point out that once again SRT couldn't
be given a chance to help win a match. It does seem like extended ill-luck, but then
the counter argument will be that if he is dubbed a great player, he must invent his
own luck. We must, in analysing these results, try and be more objective and look at
it as the team's inability in supporting the player doing the job, be it SRT with the
bat or IKP with the ball. Tomorrow it will be someone else being let down. Yes, the
fact of number of losses in the finals is present and cannot be wished away. I
wanted to learn more about this, but think it prudent not to do so without lookin
more closely at the facts.
Specifically w.r.t Asia Cup 2004
I still think the Lankans were favourites throughout and just won by playing better
than the other teams. Only having conceded that can we begin to look at our team.
I will be happy if this result provokes a rethink on the 7 batsman structure.
This plan needs to be more flexible than has been demonstrated so far. IMHO, we don't
need to have 7 batsman as we can always claim that if 6 can't, how will 7? This tactic
has worked only a couple of times, but since one of them was the Natwest final, we
still are influenced by it. Remember that IKP is batting well of late, and I think
a regular 'keeper (be it Ratra/Patel) can bat well with the tail, though he may not
be a hitter. We also need to show greater reserves for the batsmen.
I didn't understand why Nehra was being sidelined for an out-of-form Zaheer (whose
last over antics must not divert from this fact). Perhaps we have to live with the
possibility that we will never have all our 5 pacers firing at the same time, and need
to make the most of the resources. I don't know if we really have a problem with our
bowling, unless of course the media goes overboard with their talents. Discipline
with wides and no-balls, and a return to our average fielding form should be enough to
bring some control to the leather hunts.
We still have a good team, and methinks, let not our prejudices, unrealistic overoptimism
and emotional responses cloud that. We still aren't good enough to play percentage cricket
with flair, or to stop resorting to "heroics". We will continue to bob about the higher-middle
sections of the rankings. The season has only just begun - Holland, England, Australia,
South Africa, Bangladesh and perhaps even Pakistan again beckon.
Was just wondering: given how everyone has blamed "rustiness" and the 2 month break,
whether the BCCI will tell us that's why they insist on having a continuous 12 month
calendar for the team so as to prevent any breaks, and hence any rustiness!