Jayaditya Gupta

The Sharad Pawar-led BCCI has some tough decisions ahead of it © AFP

After more than four months of acting coy, the Indian Cricket League (ICL) has made as bold a statement as possible, parading the 48 Indian cricketers and naming the six overseas players who will form the backbone of its inaugural season. It is as much a statement of intent as a challenge to the Indian board, with which it has been shadow-boxing since the gauntlet was first thrown in April.

The matter is now out in the open; the ICL is an entity the BCCI - nor, indeed, the ICC, which is yet to take a clear stand - cannot wish away. It is faced with a situation it must deal with, and swiftly. It must size up the pros and cons of its current hard line with one eye on the longer term, something it is not always adept at doing. Conventional wisdom says it will not shift from that stand yet this may be the time for some unconventional thinking.

At stake is not just the future of 48 Indian cricketers, though that is weighty enough; an entire domestic season could be held hostage to the simmering feud. Four top Ranji sides - Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Hyderabad - have each lost at least half a dozen players, some of whom have the potential to go beyond domestic cricket. More will join the new league, because it still needs another 40-odd players to make up the numbers. If all these players are subsequently unable to play domestic cricket in India, the effect could be crippling.

And that will be the BCCI's greatest challenge: Playing out its role as the custodian of all Indian cricket and ignoring its more natural instinct to protect a smaller piece of turf, precisely the attitude that has given the ICL enough fertile ground to sow the seeds of secession.

If you want one reason why the ICL exists today, here it is: The BCCI is a monopolistic institution that has not modernised and has, till very recently, focused its attentions on international cricket. The public was obsessed with the identity of stars who would or wouldn't, had or hadn't signed up with the league. However, not a thought was spared for those who keep the wheels of Indian cricket moving - the journeymen first-class players, the umpires, the scorers, the faceless people who perform thankless tasks so that, every season, a Karthik or a Sreesanth or a Chawla comes along.

There is no evidence at hand that the ICL will address the problems of these people. It is, after all, a stated commercial venture. But it has entered a vacuum created by the board's inability - unwillingness, even - to see cricket in terms of a sport to be nurtured and see it instead as a cash cow to be milked. This fight, stripped of all ideological posturing, may be about TV ratings and the advertising revenue they bring in but the ICL is likely to tap into the feelings of insecurity and neglect among those who live in the shadows, feelings that prompted the likes of Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, 24, one of the architects of Bengal's road to the Ranji final last season, to sign up and sign away his India cap.

All this invests in the ICL a greater responsibility to safeguard the future of those who have, as Kapil Dev emotionally put it, had the courage to take their own decisions. If the BCCI remains truculent and slaps the ban it has threatened, the ICL must ensure that the players - not exactly the cream of India but honest practitioners of the game - are not left in limbo. In other words, the Zee group, the ICL's parent company, must not pull the rug from under its feet if the whole venture stops making business sense.

Much of that, in turn, will depend on the quality of cricket the ICL will offer, and the jury is out on that. Suffice to say that few of the players named today are Twenty20 experts; most have made their name in longer versions of the game and some, like Inzamam-ul Haq, are patently unsuited to the whirlwind pace of cricket's newest avatar. The problem can be partially offset, though, by smart packaging, for which the presence on board of Tony Greig and Dean Jones will come in handy.

Yet if the ICL has to establish its credibility - and at the moment the meter reading is set to zero - it can only do so with credible cricket. In many ways the easy bit is over. It is one thing to sign up players, quite another to motivate them when they joined for the money. What will they play for: Pride? Nationality? Regional affiliation?

Today was a day when Indian cricket could have celebrated the emergence, in keeping with trends in other spheres, of a money-spinning league promising more opportunities for its players. Instead there is concern over how it will impact the game in India. The problem is largely of the BCCI's own making; so, too, can be the solution.

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan

Dravid has used the experience of team-mates like Ganguly well, but there's no denying he needs someone to share the burden of leadership on a more consistent basis © AFP

"Undefeated after Chappell," bellowed a hack shortly after India's historic series win at The Oval. Following Greg Chappell's exit after the World Cup debacle, India have won two Test series - one of them admittedly against Bangladesh - and six one-dayers. A solitary defeat against South Africa in the first match of the Future Cup remains the only blemish.

Victory no doubt brings its own aura, but this India side looks like a team. The "divisive" senior players are nowhere in sight. What instead has been on view is camaraderie and a unity of purpose. It is early still to pass judgment on the coaching abilities of Venkatesh Prasad and Robin Singh, but it can be said that they have been matey, almost soothing figures compared to Chappell who was strong and dominating. There is a relaxed and open air to the dressing room now.

Both Prasad and Robin were part of the team until a few years ago. Both played under Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Gangly and have immediately caught the pulse of the team. Both, players feel, know the extent to which they can push each cricketer and understand the pressures of playing for India. The bowlers' workloads were carefully handled in the series so far - India, remember, had only three frontline seamers and couldn't afford injuries to any. Greg King, the trainer, has gelled well with Prasad and Robin, while the venerable Chandu Borde, the manager, has chipped in with the odd piece of advice.

When he was standing at mid-off to the fast bowlers, Rahul Dravid had sounding boards in different parts of the field. Ganguly has been relied upon to assess pitches. Tendulkar, the vice-captain; Ganguly, the former captain; and VVS Laxman, the man who might have made a good captain, have chirped away in the slips. Anil Kumble, who has been strangely forgotten in the captaincy debates, has voiced his thoughts from gully. Dravid hasn't wasted the wealth of experience around him; he has solicited advice and weighed up options.

What happens in a couple of years' time, when India may have to do without five of their big guns? Don't they need someone who can get the next generation up to speed?

Insiders admit it has been a while since they saw the older players so chipper. Throughout the last year the seniors in the side were divided over Chappell, but his exit has had a healing effect.

Youngsters have been carried along. Not only have the senior players weighed in with their performances, they have also taken up mentoring roles. Dinesh Karthik has spent evenings with Tendulkar, the "greatest cricketer" he has seen; Sreesanth, overawed on the first morning at Lord's, has been "inspired" by Ganguly.

Inevitably this has prompted the question: do India really need a coach? Does any international team? The longer India's winning sequence lasts - and they start favourites for the seven-match one-day series against England - the louder will be the calls to stay without one. There is a view that the current set-up could deliver consistent success, and that an outsider coming in would mess up plans - which is a different tune from the one the players seemed to be unanimously singing a couple of months ago.

Current success will back up the argument, but the immediate present should not be allowed to obscure the big picture. While it will be tempting to maintain the status quo, the recent run of success won't have changed a few ground realities. The Indian administration and the team will do well to ask themselves a few questions.

Are India completely aware of the requirements of the modern game? Do they possess the creativity and vision needed to build a team for the future? Does the captain need someone to share his burden with? Do the current coaches need someone to guide them along?

Having been part of the team, Venkatesh Prasad knows the pressures of playing for India. He also knows how much he can push each of his bowlers © Getty Images

It's one thing to bask in the present but one needs to keep an eye on the future. A relaxed atmosphere is important but is there a risk of it getting too relaxed? Also, what happens in a couple of years' time, when India may have to do without five of their big guns? Don't they need someone who can get the next generation up to speed? Where does one look for leadership then?

Dravid himself, as ever, takes the measured view. "We've had some good success on this tour, but it will be too simplistic to say it's because we haven't had [a coach]," he said. "There are other factors that have gone into us playing well. You can't just focus on the coach.

"Sometimes you're in the team and looking at it from one perspective. People from outside can look at a team and see the direction it's going in. They must provide some intelligence and input as well."

India likely don't need another Chappell, who thought rocking the boat was the best way to steady it. But they perhaps need another John Wright. A quiet back-room worker, in tune with the requirements of modern game, strongly wedded to work ethic, who can be both friend and guide. Cricket will remain a game where the captain is the central figure, but the pressures of the modern game require him to have a sounding board, and someone to share the responsibilities and the attention. Particularly when things are not going well.

The captain knows what he expects of his bowlers, the bowling coach knows what they're capable of. RP Singh shouldn't need to go to Leicestershire to find out what his technical faults are; the problem should be diagnosed back home. A technically sound head coach to liaise between the two would serve the purpose. The position must be filled by a professional who prefers not to be seen but is a trusted man-manager. He needs to understand the players, yet crack the
whip. It's hard to say if there is anyone who meets all these requirements, but if he does exist, India need to grab him. The earlier the better.

Jayaditya Gupta

The BCCI's chief objection to the ICL is that television programming is involved, which means the league treads on the board's turf © AFP

The chatter is louder than Matt Prior in full flow: Brian Lara is on board, Shane Warne has expressed his desire to jump on and is that Glenn McGrath in the distance? There's a possibility that these three, and other stars, will play Twenty20 cricket - itself a novelty - in India as part of the Indian Cricket League (ICL). Though all three have retired from international cricket, Warne is active on the county circuit, Lara looks to have gas in his tank still, and anyone who saw McGrath bowl in his last international match, the World Cup final, would find it hard to believe that he has reached pensionable age.

That's only half the story; the other half is the ICL's running battle with the Board for Control of Cricket in India, aka the Bureaucratic Custodians of Cricket in self-Interest. The BCCI has rejected the idea of the ICL and has asked everyone it has control over - which is pretty much the entire cricket establishment, home and away - to steer clear. Or else.

The board's proprietary stand over cricket in India is, at the very least, at odds with ground realities. The farcical way it runs the national team is well known; less documented, though perhaps more damaging, is how it runs all other levels of cricket in the country. And all other aspects, from umpires to ground scheduling.

The board's objection has little to do with the ICL being a privately run league. There are hundreds of those in India; among the most famous are Mumbai's Times League and Kanga League, which have coexisted with the official system for years, functioning as finishing schools for some of Mumbai's best players, and hugely benefiting Indian cricket. The key difference between those and the ICL is this: the ICL involves television programming, and so treads directly on the BCCI's turf. All else flows from there.

The ICL will be based on the Twenty20 game, the least developed of cricket's three formats in India. The first edition of the BCCI's own Twenty20 tournament sank without a trace, shunted to the end of the domestic calendar last season, when it was in direct competition to the World Cup in the Caribbean. Few recall who won, fewer still care. Least of all, apparently, the BCCI itself: India's provisional squad for the Twenty20 World Championship in South Africa later this year has precisely three representatives from the two domestic finalist teams. That's three among 30 players, and it's anyone's guess if any will make the final cut.

The board can outsource the administration of Twenty20 cricket to the ICL, and let the new league throw up a pool of players who can be cherry-picked for the national team. Unlike the established players, they will have specialised in the shortest version of the game

The BCCI has never been hot on nurturing a system; the rise of one-day cricket in India - even the World Cup victory 24 years ago - has been more by accident than design. By embracing the ICL, the board can feed off a system that is already in place and is effectively someone else's headache. This way, it can focus on its core competence - making money.

Over in the West Indies, the umbrella cricket board has, after a year's resistance, bought into Allen Stanford's vision for cricket in the region. Last year the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) stymied the grand finale of the Stanford 20/20 tournament, an all-stars game between the best of the West Indians and a South African side for a $5million purse. Stanford bit his lip and tried again, and the upshot is that the next season has the WICB on board, Cricket Australia and Cricket South Africa interested, and the ICC worried.

The ICL's biggest problem currently is the lack of a venue, with the BCCI leaning heavily on those who own stadiums, at home or abroad, to close all doors to the rebels or risk losing India matches. But the ICL can well flex its own muscles and simply make the down payment on a ten-year lease. Money is not the problem now, and the suits at the BCCI are amateurs against the industrial strength of the Zee group, the ICL's backers.

The ICL has a role model in Allen Stanford, who has his own ground in Antigua © Neil Manthorp

Zee can learn from Stanford here. If the BCCI continues to hold out and play the neighbourhood bully, the ICL, which has already tied up with a leading infrastructure development company, could simply build its own workspace. Stanford's complex, near the airport in Antigua, includes a cricket ground, banks, restaurants, a health club with swimming pool, gym, and aerobics studios; a hotel and conference centre are in the works.

In fact, there is a precedent closer home, in the form of the Sahara group, which has built a plush mini-city in the forbidding rocky hills near Pune in western India, and then attracted a host of big names in sport - Daley Thompson, Anna Kournikova, Boris Becker, Nadia Comaneci and Edwin Moses among them - as brand ambassadors.

Other problems, including hiring players, can be dealt with similarly. The BCCI could yet be hoisted by its own petard: its failure to invest in a cricketing culture, and the resulting lack of viable opportunities for former cricketers, could make any option seem attractive. The carrot of a pension when they eventually retire - approximately Rs 35,000 a month - will not mean as much to a Ganguly or a Laxman as the chance of playing with some big names.

That it should come down to this zero-sum game is a pity. Indian cricket is big enough for two players, or 20, or 200, and it would help if they were pulling in the same direction. Instead of cutting its nose off to spite its face, the BCCI should wake up and smell the coffee - and the opportunity.

With Ford out of the picture, will the board turn to Emburey? © Getty Images

Dileep Premachandran

Another day, another crisis, and as you were for the BCCI. Just two days ago, the seven-man committee empowered with choosing India's next cricket coach assumed that they had got their man. Graham Ford had flown down to Chennai - along with John Emburey, a dummy candidate in all but name - and his presentation had convinced the wise men to offer him a one-year
contract.

On the face of it, the BCCI and the Indian players, Rahul Dravid in particular, would have cause to feel let down because, according to information available to Cricinfo, Ford had almost accepted the job. It was merely a question of when and not if. He was aware that the offer was for one year, with a provision for a two-year extension, and that he would have to work with existing support staff that included Venkatesh Prasad and Robin Singh.

Somewhere along the line, he changed his mind. Several conjectures have been made as to why he did so; the briefness of the tenure, maybe, or he was unhappy with what he saw. Personal reasons have also been mentioned. His wife, Liz, has battled cancer for several years and it's understandable if he had second thoughts about taking on the stresses and strains of a job in the subcontinent.

But it certainly does not absolve the BCCI of its responsibility. The fiasco has merely highlighted the board's ineptitude in finding the right man for the job. India were sent packing from the World Cup long before the April-fool jokes were sent out, yet no serious attempt was made to draw up a shortlist of replacements for Greg Chappell.

Even as Ravi Shastri was appointed caretaker coach for the tour of Bangladesh, the whispers behind the scenes kept throwing up one name - Dav Whatmore. In addition to an impressive resume, Whatmore had revealed his interest in the job and, when certain top BCCI officials spoke to him in Dhaka, it appeared a done deal.

When it comes to Indian cricket, though, you should never believe what you see or read. Yesterday's flavour became today's bitter aftertaste as Whatmore's name was cut from the list of probables a week ago. Influential folk within the team, and on the seven-man committee appointed to choose the coach, were said to be against him and it was thus that Ford moved
into pole position.

What followed illustrated just how low Indian cricket's stock has fallen. To create the illusion of a contest for a job that had once interested so many, the board roped in Emburey, a man with no coaching credentials to speak of. If anything, it was a slap in the face of the homegrown
candidates. Had there been a viable second option - Tom Moody and Desmond Haynes were in contention when Chappell got the job - the BCCI could have turned to him after Ford's rebuff.

By not advertising for the post or sending out feelers as soon as Chappell left for Australia, the board seriously overestimated its own hand. The promise of a big fat payday may lure those more mercenary but a top-level coach requires all sorts of assurances before taking up a job of
such magnitude. Freedom to choose one's own support staff and the autonomy to chart out a long-term plan - in consultation with the captain - are of paramount importance to the best in the business, as is involvement at some level in team selection.

It's also worth noting that the last two Indian coaches were chosen by the players. Rahul Dravid was instrumental in John Wright's arrival from Kent, and Sourav Ganguly played a pivotal role in Chappell being appointed. It's no secret that the move to bring in Ford also had the blessing of the team's seniors. Whether that's a healthy trend is debatable, since part of the coach's job description undoubtedly involves tough love when the team is going astray.

What are the options now? As Sunil Gavaskar, one of the members on the committee that offered Ford the job, has said, the board is back where it started. Squads will be selected on Tuesday to tour Ireland and England and there is no time to find a coach to accompany the team. Will they find one before more serious business, India's Test series against England, begins?

For a start, do they even know where to look? This is an embarrassment that the BCCI has brought upon itself.

A 37th Test hundred for Tendulkar but at what price? © Getty Images

Sachin Tendulkar's recent failures to dominate average attacks are often exaggerated by the weight of his reputation: a slow, passive century from Tendulkar would still be a solid knock by someone else, it is said. There must be truth to it but the manner in which he crawled to a century today has left even that argument open to doubt. Today's was a solid, honest Test century - for a debutant, not for someone playing his 137th Test.

Coming in at 281 for 0, Tendulkar never looked like he was batting in a side pushing for a declaration on a flat wicket where their bowlers would need the maximum time to get 20 wickets. He ended up with an unbeaten 122 off 226 balls, his strike-rate faster than only Sourav Ganguly among Indian batsmen.

What does one expect of a No. 4 walking in at 281 for 0, when the team know they will have to bowl on a flat wicket in extremely tough conditions? Tendulkar has, not unfairly, been put in the same bracket as Ricky Ponting and Brian Lara over his career but surely neither would have scored at a strike-rate of 53.98 in a similar situation? A strike-rate that only increased after what appeared to be a clear message to hurry up, during the tea interval? As the table below shows, Tendulkar faced nearly half the total deliveries bowled while he was out in the middle but scored only 40% of the runs, which is hardly what you'd expect from the leading batsman in the team.

The contrast is stark when his contributions are compared to those of his partners: both Dravid and Karthik scored far more runs than Tendulkar, though Tendulkar faced more than half the deliveries during each stand. His approach when batting with Karthik was particularly perplexing; Tendulkar was already on 49 when Karthik came in, yet he scored at a niggardly 2.87 runs per over in that second-wicket stand, even as Karthik scored nearly two runs more per over.

Ganguly's arrival should have forced Tendulkar to take charge. Instead, he seemed more intent on ensuring that a 37th Test hundred didn't elude him - Tendulkar was on 83 when Ganguly came, and the get-your-century-at-any-cost attitude meant he used up 42 deliveries to go from 80 to 100. In fact, his second 50 runs took four balls more - 102 - than his first. (Karthik, on the other hand, scored his last 107 runs in 128 balls, while Dravid's second fifty took 68.) Only after getting to the hundred did Tendulkar step it up, getting his last 22 off 26 balls.

That Tendulkar was not really comfortable was evident yesterday too. He had ended the first day with nine from 31 balls: surely he wasn't playing for stumps for the last 13 overs of the day?

There is more to it than the numbers, though - and that's the worrying part. A show of intent was missed probably as much as the ability to take control of the game and demoralise the bowlers. It has become a cliché to say how painful it is to see Tendulkar scratch around for runs against bowlers who are good but not exceptional but, on today's evidence, it still stands true.

Mashrafe Mortaza kept coming at him with manful short-pitched stuff, because he saw Tendulkar was not comfortable handling it. Even yesterday, he had played at and narrowly escaped tickling the first delivery with the new ball. At times, he ducked too early; on occasions, he took his eye off the ball while swaying away. During the opening spell of the day, he kept Mortaza especially interested. Hook shots weren't even contemplated, it seemed. He scored 19 off 52 Mortaza deliveries. It could have been any other batsman.

Mohammad Rafique was not given any opportunity to disbelieve that Tendulkar has history against left-arm spinners. Twice, after Tendulkar had passed fifty, Rafique did him with classical stuff, not the stifling kind. At 52, he edged one past the non-existent slip for four. The next one Tendulkar, well set, did not have a clue about. He was 72 when one pitched on the middle stump and took his outside edge. Rafique was not even required to adopt the defensive approach of bowling over the wicket.

Tendulkar couldn't improvise and play a scoring shot when deceived by the slowness of the wicket. Not long ago, you'd describe him as a batsman who had two shots for every ball; here he was struggling to do anything more than nudge it to leg. Thirty-seven of his runs - including 19 singles and five twos - came behind square on the leg side. On the other hand, only 18 of his runs were scored in the covers, with just one four.
It just doesn't seem possible that the team plan required Tendulkar to play anchor, after having racked up such a large total without losing a wicket and especially as Rahul Dravid also asserted himself on the game. If it was, it was a flawed one. That they got quick wickets towards the end of the day's play should not change things; it remains that the wicket was not doing anything while Tendulkar batted.

The wicket was slow, the weather conditions were tough, no more. But Dravid, Dinesh Karthik and Wasim Jaffer all accelerated in the latter parts of their innings. For Tendulkar, the acceleration came only after the century. It was all the more painful to see him make the conditions and bowling look more difficult than they probably were.

Worryingly for India, Tendulkar has been batting in this perplexing, defensive mode more often recently, and has done so for successive Test hundreds on this tour: the numbers were similar for his century in the previous match, at Chittagong - 75 balls for his first 50, 92 for his next; 62 runs in the arc from fine leg to midwicket, including 38 singles. Just like the pace of his hundred didn't matter at Chittagong, it might not make a difference here if the weather stays clear and Bangladesh continue to crumble. Against England later this summer, though, the runs he scores - and the rate he gets them at - could matter a whole lot more.

by Sambit Bal

The decision to retain Rahul Dravid as captain is a mature one, not swayed by the immediacy of defeat © AFP

Adversity is known to test character. It can provoke reactions ranging from panic and hysteria to composure and creativity. Over the past two days, the Board of Control for Cricket in India has shown itself to be schizophrenic. Its response to the recent decline of the Indian team ranged from the pragmatic and progressive to the shrill and slyly opportunistic.

It has taken a number of good decisions and made some right noises. By appointing Ravi Shastri as cricket manager, though it's not yet clear if can be persuaded to accept the job on a long-term basis, and splitting the coach's job, the BCCI has demonstrated its openness to flexible and creative thinking.

By retaining Rahul Dravid as captain, and also acceding to a number of his suggestions - appointing bowling and fielding coaches and creating the posts of professional administrative manager and media manager - the board has not only reposed faith in the captain, who is the best available choice at the moment, but also given him his desired personnel. It is a mature decision not swayed by the immediacy of defeat. It is a massive vote of confidence for Dravid.

And by deciding to send a young team to Bangladesh under Dravid, the board has not only shown a commitment to the future but also sent out a strong message to a bunch of players who were beginning to form a pressure group for all the wrong reasons. A certain staleness has crept in to the batting, with a few big players seeming more intent on self-preservation, and India have floundered repeatedly in conditions and situations where the Big Fish have been required to step up. Four of India's top-five batsmen are now nearing the end of their careers and the changeover has to be made now.

But the most seminal and far-reaching of all is the decision to scrap the zonal selection committee. Amateur selectors picked through the regional quota system have been among the most anachronistic and venal symbols of an organization that relies on power-broking and horse-trading. There is no guarantee that this will not be another hollow promise but it is for the first time that the board has made a written commitment to professionalise the system and that's a big step forward.

The measures announced to strengthen and revitalize domestic cricket appear to be superficial. Announcing that international players will play more domestic matches is one thing and creating the circumstances for them to be able to do so is another. The international calendar is already crammed, and in addition the Indian board has its own television deals that need fulfilling.

As for making lively pitches, it's an old commitment that has never been kept. Pitch committees have existed for years and have taken several token, half-baked measures but it is hard to believe that something will happen till it actually happens.

However, the board has also exploited the current circumstances - players are vulnerable and public opinion is that they are overpaid and underperforming - to protect its own commercial interests at the expense of the players.

As for making lively pitches, it's an old commitment that has never been kept and it is hard to believe that something will happen till it actually happens © Getty Images

The trigger for this crackdown is understood to be a clause that the board believes exists in the endorsement contract of a couple of batsmen linking their bonus to their stay in the crease.
If true, it is a serious transgression, and the matter must be investigated and culprits exposed. Rumours and innuendos will only hurt Indian cricket.

And to use this to impose the kind of restrictions the board is seeking to might be legally indefensible. It would run contrary to the spirit of free trade and would amount to exploitation of a monopoly organisation, not to speak of the widespread resentment it will create among the players. Since the board is not seeking to enforce this with retrospective effect, the players with existing contracts will not be affected while those on the rise will.

To argue that players are distracted from the game by their commitment to advertisers is slightly specious because the most successful players happen to be those with the most contracts.

The board's motives are obvious. It is keen to protect the interest of its own sponsors. Many of the current Indian players endorse Reebok and Adidas to the discomfort of Nike, who have paid a handsome amount for the apparel sponsorship of the national team. Most of the individual contracts pre-date the team contract and Nike signed the deal in full knowledge of this. Whether the players want to stay with their existing deals or accept a deal from the team's sponsor if it was offered to them should be their decision alone.

Without doubt, there is a case for moderation all around. The cricket economy is overheated at the moment and the Indian board is partly responsible for it. The players are not blameless either. But there's nothing that can't be sorted out across the table. The strong-arm tactics adopted by the BCCI at the moment feel like a low blow.

by Anand Vasu

It may yet be of symbolic value, but the BCCI's message to Sachin Tendulkar, the holiest of holy cows, will not be lost on anyone © AFP

Review meetings are meant to be eyewashes. Not much more than some token nip and tuck was expected of the two-day meeting of the Board of Control for Cricket in India to discuss its team's embarrasssing early return from the World Cup. What has emerged instead is a series of tough, some would even say harsh, measures aimed at reining in some of the game's biggest - and, in the eyes of the board, truant - superstars. The message to them is strong, and it has been delivered in the bluntest manner possible.

And amid it all there is a massive vote of confidence for Rahul Dravid. It may yet be of symbolic value, but the message to Sachin Tendulkar, the holiest of holy cows, will not be lost on anyone. By deciding to serve him a show cause notice for his interview to a leading newspaper,
in which he expressed his hurt over the coach questioning his attitude, the board has demonstrated that it is not willing to spare anyone. A similar notice has been issued to Yuvraj Singh, who went on record to say the players backed Sachin's stand.

To rub it in, the board has also announced that a team consisting of younger players will tour Bangladesh under Dravid, who has also been appointed captain for the next tour to England.

It might not say it in so many words but it is the strongest assertion of power from the board in recent times and a clear acknowledgement of the fact that it has taken serious note of the attitude of some senior players.

This is probably the most strident move by the board against the players since August 1989, when it banned six players - Dilip Vengsarkar, Kapil Dev, Ravi Shastri, Arun Lal, Mohammed Azharuddin and Kiran More - from playing international cricket for a period of one year after they participated in a series of unofficial matches in the USA. That came at a time when the players were talking about protecting their player rights and forming an association. The six players challenged the ban in the Supreme Court, which applied the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act to rule in their favour.

Though it's farfetched to see the board actually banning or fining the two players they have issued noticed to, the board has backed the accent on youth that Dravid and Greg Chappell have been talking of for a while now.

There's a strong chance that several senior players will be rested, at least for the one-dayers, in the forthcoming tour of Bangladesh. This means that players like Manoj Tiwari and Rohit Sharma will get a chance to dislodge some of the established members of the team. Strong
performances could well ensure that they get a look-in when tougher tests confront India later in the year.

It's tough to say whether Dravid has got all he wanted. But one thing is clear: The players have got a strong signal - pull together, win matches, and you will be rewarded. The board will not stand by and watch wheels within wheels undermine the efforts of some members of the team.

by Anand Vasu

'What some players saw as a single-minded commitment to an ideology, others saw as a reflection of how inflexible Chappell was as a person, how fixed he was in his ideas and views, schoolmasterly in his approach' © Getty Images

When marriages end, even the happiest of them, they end badly. And this was never a happy marriage to begin with; in that sense, the circumstances of Greg Chappell's departure comes as no surprise.

Ever since Chappell won the coaching assignment some 23 months ago, armed with a vision he was picked for by a panel of eminent former Indian captains, controversy has dogged Indian cricket. He took over at a time when the Indian team was in a downward slide and it was assumed that his larger-than-life persona would not just arrest this slide but take Indian cricket to the next level.

However, for his way of thinking and working - distinct as it was from the Indian way, precisely the reason that he was hired - to have any effect, he needed the team, especially the senior group, to buy into his philosophy. That the team has not merely failed to go up to the next level but has come down a notch could have as much to do with this as it does with the assertion that Chappell failed as a man-manager and could not carry a group of diverse and difficult cricketers with him.

It didn't take a genius to work out that he would be the obvious scapegoat for India's failure at the World Cup. But it is mischievous to lay the blame for all ills squarely at his doorstep. "Team-spirit is a bit of an overrated word," Rahul Dravid once said in an interview, taking this writer by surprise. "When the team is winning the spirit is always good. When the spirit is good, the team wins, more often than not. But which comes first?" In this case the spirit, if at all present when Chappell took over, was considerably weakened.

Convinced that Indian cricket was strong enough, he was willing to plunge it into chaos for he believed that real clarity had a better chance of emerging from confusion rather than denial

And there came Chappell's first blind spot.

Convinced that Indian cricket was strong enough, he was willing to plunge it into chaos for he believed that real clarity had a better chance of emerging from confusion rather than denial. When he wrote that scathing six-page email to the BCCI on Ganguly, knowing full well it could be leaked, he precipitated a change of captaincy that was clearly needed - Indian cricket needed the coach and captain to reading from the same page, and that happened with Dravid's elevation. Yet it should escape no one's attention that he had put his job on the line in doing so, standing for the principles he believed in.

The transition was messy - private arguments became public wars - leaving Dravid with a poisoned chalice. Therein came what is seen as Chappell's second flaw, and ironically Dravid's greatest strength. For the two, some things were non-negotiable. They made it clear that players would pick themselves - not be artificially propped up by selectors or the team management - and, apart from just runs and wickets, factors like a constant urge to improve, a hunger to excel, to do things the right way, would play a part.

There were some players whom the two probably felt had slipped into a comfort zone, did not display these attributes, and got the axe. But their young replacements, who had the right attitude - the Suresh Rainas and VRV Singhs - simply did not do enough to validate the theory that doing the right things would bring the right results.

What some players saw as a single-minded commitment to an ideology, others saw as a reflection of how inflexible Chappell was as a person, how fixed he was in his ideas and views, schoolmasterly in his approach. Chappell could counter that by pointing to a group of cricketers who were unused to being told what to do, were left untouched in success and failure, and largely believed they already knew all they needed to about cricket. And it's no coincidence which group, the youngsters or the seniors, were doing the most complaining, even in private.

'Chappell pushed the players harder than they ever had been, physically and mentally, and some didn't take too kindly to this' © Getty Images

The flashpoint of Chappell's tempestuous tenure was the dropping of Ganguly, the premise of which was that a Ganguly free of the burden of captaincy would emerge a stronger batsman. This was proved right when Ganguly returned from 14 months in the wilderness, before which his batting had fallen away to the point that even his loyalists in the team had lost faith in it. With Ganguly away, India won a record 18 one-day chases, and it was only much later, after the youth policy caved in, that the "experimentation" failed, the "process" was summarily discarded and the old guard recalled for the World Cup, leaving Chappell's hands all but tied.

Chappell pushed the players harder than they ever had been, physically and mentally, and some didn't take too kindly to this. The players were also enraged by the fact that Chappell was talking about his apprehensions, in confidence, to a variety of journalists - something his friends constantly warned against - but the damage was done when these tales reached the players.

That Chappell repeatedly failed to learn from these incidents was a serious error in judgment and cannot be glossed over. But that the players should take such umbrage, and blame this alone for destroying the harmony of the dressing-room is laughable, for they are past masters at manipulating the media to achieve their purposes, as the most recent sordid episode amply demonstrated.

Chappell leaving is not a tragedy. Someone will take his place, Indian cricket, and life, will go on. It is sad, though, that that things hadn't worked out between Indian cricket and Chappell. When a relationship breaks down and a dream dies, what really hurts is the fact itself, not whose fault it was. Perhaps the sceptics were right all along - Indian cricket and Chappell were just not meant to be -but an honest person would admit that it couldn't have failed solely because of one man's flaws.

by Sambit Bal

Perhaps India was not ready for Chappell, or perhaps Chappell didn't have it him to coach India with all its complexities © Getty Images

One of the most tumultuous chapters in Indian cricket has come to an end with Greg Chappell ruling himself out of contention for the Indian coaching job. Perhaps he merely pre-empted the inevitable; it was difficult to see how he could have carried on. The differences between him and many of those whom he was to manage had become far too wide and far beyond healthy.

Passions are running too high at the moment to attempt an objective assessment of his tenure. Perhaps India was not ready for Chappell, or perhaps Chappell didn't have it him to coach India with all its complexities.

His letter has simplified the matter for the BCCI to a degree. It has removed one of the many inconvenient questions confronting the board. It should not, however, serve as a convenient escape route. Chappell had his faults but Indian cricket, and the cricketers in particular, would be living in delusion if they convince themselves that he was the problem. To comprehend the magnitude of the problem read S Rajesh's fine analysis of India's batting in recent times. Sanjay Manjrekar has pithily pointed out that Chappell held up a mirror to Indian cricket.

Chappell's final report shouldn't be dismissed as the rants of a bitter coach, because it's likely to contain some home truths. Not confronting the truth and not owning up would only keep Indian cricket in the comfort of darkness.

So what now? The sentiment is building up towards a homegrown coach. Even the players, who were so opposed to the idea a couple of years ago, are open it to now. Mohinder Amarnath's name has cropped up again, as has Sandeep Patil's. Some board members are even proposing the name of Sunil Gavaskar, who has so far kept himself away from contention.

Do India really need a coach in the traditional sense? In fact, is there a single definition for a cricket coach?

But nothing would be more disastrous than an Indian being appointed for the sake of it. It is fashionable among former players to speak mockingly of laptop coaches but no country can afford a coach lacking in contemporary thinking. A return to status quo would be a step
back to the dark ages.

Here's a thought, though: Do India really need a coach in the traditional sense? In fact, is there a single definition for a cricket coach?

Over the years, coaches have defined their own roles according to their own beliefs and abilities. Some focus on technicalities, some are theorists, some are man-managers and some believe in being facilitators. Bob Woolmer was one of the finest batting coaches, John Buchanan is a man of ideas and John Wright believed in creating the right environment for
his players. No single coach can ever hope to fulfill all the requirements of a modern cricket team.

Given that a foreign coach is bound come up against the system in India and get both frustrated with and hampered by it, why not consider appointing a team of specialists? Many countries are moving towards specialised coaches integrated into a unit. Troy Cooley worked wonders with the English bowlers, Jonty Rhodes is busy cranking up the fielding of the South African team yet another notch and Mike Young has done so with the Australians.

India need help in all three areas of the game. The batsmen have consistently struggled to come to terms with pace, bounce and swing. They have a young and impressionable pace bowling attack which is now led by Zaheer Khan, himself returning from a break, and no one needs help more urgently than Irfan Pathan. John Wright has often spoken about how much the pace bowlers benefited from the presence of Bruce Reid in their camp during their successful tour of Australia. And India are among the world's worst fielding sides, regularly conceding 20 to 30 runs in one-day cricket.

Money is not a concern and if the board is sincere about it, they can find the best professionals from the global pool of talent. This team can then work with a manager of stature and proven integrity, an Indian who can help them negotiate the system. Someone who can be both link and a shield. Someone tough and uncompromising. Someone who can relate to Indian players, who is above petty politics and regionalism, and wholly committed to the idea of winning.

Step forward Ravi Shastri.

Ian Chappell

To see senior players just going through the motions in the field would have been enough to send Greg off on a search for young players who could field © AFP

If there was any chance of Greg Chappell continuing his tenure as coach of India it probably disappeared when Bob Woolmer was murdered during the World Cup.

Such an ugly incident is sure to focus your concentration on life's priorities. As much as it would seem that Greg is probably better off without all the angst that comes with one of the most demanding jobs in cricket I doubt he'll feel completely fulfilled. A perfectionist, even
one who has mellowed, is never going to be happy with under-achieving on his expectations.

Greg's only rationale for playing cricket was to win. I can guarantee that, because we had the same tutor: our father Martin. Greg's approach in his latest role would have been exactly the same, to do everything he could to help India win.

Greg is a respectful person but there is no point in trying to be like an Indian when you've been employed because of your knowledge and experience as an Australian cricketer.

For example, in Sachin Tendulkar's recent comments he said: "No coach
had mentioned even in passing that my attitude was not correct."

As a cricketer Greg was always trying to better himself, especially his
mental approach to the game. Improvement doesn't come without constantly
challenging yourself and also responding to the demands of your
team-mates, something that happened regularly in the Australian team.
Having seen Tendulkar struggle in recent times Greg would accept it as
part of his job to challenge the him to resurrect his batting
in order to help India win matches.

There is no point in trying to be like an Indian when you've been employed because of your knowledge and experience as an Australian cricketer

That is not questioning a player's attitude, that is called striving for
improvement.

Greg was one of the best half a dozen all-round fieldsmen I've seen;
he's up there with Neil Harvey, Viv Richards, Mark Waugh, Mohammad
Azharuddin and Ricky Ponting and it would have grated that many of
India's best batsmen were slouches in the field.

To see senior players just going through the motions in the field would
have been enough to send Greg off on a search for young players who
could field. However, they would also have needed to be good at another
skill and hence his early push to get younger, more athletic cricketers
into the team.

The fact that his tenure as Indian coach was less than satisfactory for
both Greg and the team is probably a good indication that the system
producing young cricketers needs more than just a bit of fine tuning.
The day before he resigned, a "Kerry Packer'-style proposal was put
forward for Indian cricket, which suggests Greg isn't the only one who
thinks the system needs a large overhaul.

S Rajesh

'The best players like to measure themselves against the strongest opposition, and in Tendulkar's case the recent numbers don't stack up well at all' © Getty Images

While India's players blame their recent poor form on everything from a manipulative coach to a sense of insecurity to an indifferent captain, the plain truth is this: When it really mattered, India's batsmen failed to deliver. It's a fact that has been obscured by emotion, hype and selective memory but a reading of the statistics is revealing.

First, India's overall ODI record under Greg Chappell:

Played 62, won 32, lost 27. It's a fair record - more victories than defeats, a win-loss ratio (1.18) which is better than that achieved by West Indies (1), Pakistan (0.94) and England (0.65), and only marginally behind Sri Lanka (1.22).

Scratch the surface, though, and some disturbing trends emerge: India won 19 out of 28 matches at home - mostly in comfortable batting conditions - but only 13 out of 34 when they travelled overseas. The win-loss ratio of 0.68 is comfortably lower than Pakistan's and England's, and only marginally better than West Indies' 0.57.

That Indian batsmen flourish on the flat tracks of home is well documented, but the star-studded line-up had briefly demonstrated an ability to perform in more demanding conditions as well. That has all but disappeared in the last 21 months - the big names have appeared far too vulnerable to the merest hint of seam, swing or even spin.

The analysis below brings out how the runs scored by the Indian batsmen during this period has been a function of the conditions and the strength of the opposition, not of their own form, which comes and goes depending on the might of the bowlers.

For the purpose of the analysis, all the ODIs played by India during this period have been divided into two categories - the first comprises matches that were played in relatively batting-friendly conditions; and the second includes the games in which the bowlers had more say. The first category includes the following: all ODIs played in India except the Champions Trophy and the four ODIs versus South Africa in 2005-06, plus India's five-match series in Pakistan in the same season, and their World Cup game against Bermuda. These were games in which the bowling attack or the conditions or both allowed the bat to dominate. Not surprisingly, all the Indian batsmen except a couple have excellent records, with Mahendra Singh Dhoni's numbers reaching Bradmanesque proportions.

The story is entirely different, though, when the batsmen have been tested a little more. The next table includes matches which have been a bigger test for batsmen - the Videocon Cup in Zimbabwe, all matches in Sri Lanka, the DLF Cup in Malaysia, and the ODIs in South Africa in West Indies.

The batsman who was the most successful in these tougher games didn't even make it to the World Cup. Mohammad Kaif made unbeaten knocks of 102 and 93 against New Zealand in the Videocon Cup and was consistently among the runs in the West Indies in 2006, but a few failures thereafter pushed him out of the side. Apart from him and Yuvraj, none of the others averages even 30 in these games.

The differences in batting averages between the two tables shows just how much the batsmen have been found wanting when the team's needed someone to put his hand up. Dhoni's average drops by a whopping 73 runs, while even Dravid's and Tendulkar's performances have dropped by 50%.

All these numbers are of course masked when you merely look at the overall figures during this period: Dravid averages 39.82 in these 21 months, Tendulkar 40.16, Dhoni 46.13. They look like healthy numbers - and they are - till you delve deeper.

Tendulkar's overall stats look impressive, but check out his recent performances against the two best sides - apart from the 55 against South Africa at Centurion, he hasn't managed a single half-century in 11 innings. The best players always like to measure themselves against the strongest opposition, and in Tendulkar's case the recent numbers don't stack up well at all.

Through most of India's recent ODI travails, it's the less-heralded bowlers who have done well - only twice during this period have they conceded more than 300, while the average runs per over conceded is only 4.93. Twenty times they've restricted the opposition to less than five per over, but India have only managed to win 50% of those games.

The batsmen have always been the ones who've been feted after most of India's ODI triumphs. It's time they took the bulk of the blame for the losses too.

by Jayaditya Gupta

'For years the BCCI has steadfastly taken for granted the vast legions of footsoldiers of Indian cricket ... for years it has turned a blind eye to everything but the opportunity to make a quick buck; Now, it could be hoist on its own petard' © Getty Images

First, though, a note of cynicism: It's best to wait and see whether this is a genuine move by Chandra and his vast Essel group or a bargaining ploy by the man who lost out on the BCCI's TV rights three-odd years ago. Will Chandra go the distance or will he be open to adjustments if the right signals are sent out?

Chandra's move has been compared to what Kerry Packer did 30-odd years ago; the Packer analogies are tempting but first a quick recap of what the Australian tycoon did and why it was so revolutionary. Thirty years ago, world cricket - essentially Lord's and the MCG - was run by myopic, blinkered and hidebound men in suits who guarded their fiefdoms jealously. Packer saw the commercial opportunity in world cricket and sought to work within the system but when twice rebuffed forged the breakaway World Series of Cricket. It wasn't an instant success but it did eventually catch fire, thanks to the big names on his roster, some shrewd marketing and some TV innovations that were gimmicks then but are indispensable today.

Subhash Chandra is also a media baron, also a jilted suitor for TV rights despite making the best offer and is also up against a board that guards its turf zealously and which, given the discontent emanating from every corner of its territory, faces the prospect of the game going into complete disarray.

However, there are two key differences between then and now. Packer's gambit was fuelled almost solely by money, based on the absurdly low wages top international players were drawing at the time. His bait to players was simply an exponential increase - up to tenfold, in some cases - in whatever their boards were paying them.

That won't work in India, where the top players are famously well-paid. True, the current deadlock over the latest player contracts is over money - the share of TV revenue - but that is a relatively minor irritant. In any case players' endorsements - a bigger source of their earnings - is directly linked to their Team India status. That is the ultimate carrot the BCCI holds: The India cap, and what it means. It is the doorway to credibility - ask all those batsmen whose centuries in World Series Cricket added nothing to their career averages - and, equally, the only measure of success by the brand managers.

That lack of a lure may explain the second glaring difference: Chandra doesn't have a Name. Not a single Name as a player, not a single Name as an administrator or official in any capacity. Packer had several Names to begin with, and kept adding more once the ball was set rolling.

If the BCCI feels threatened, it may be stirred into action. If Chandra has held out his hand in genuine partnership, and if the BCCI accepts, Indian cricket can only get better. Which isn't saying much right now but every little bit helps

What Chandra needs is an evangelist, just as Ian Chappell and Tony Greig were to Packer, spreading the good word among their peers, their credibility substituting for Packer's relative lack of stature. If, for argument's sake, Sachin Tendulkar were to become brand ambassador for the Indian Cricket League, half of Chandra's work would be done. Of course, Chappell was a recently retired captain, and Chandra could soon have his pick of players with such a profile.

It might be easier for the ICL to tempt players from overseas; many of the top names are anyway familiar with the financial carrots that India offers, several have agents or representatives here and if it is a quick-fire, one-month affair, they might be strongly tempted to make some fast money. There is opportunity here for Inzamam-ul Haq, say, or Brian Lara or even Glenn McGrath.

Actually, there is opportunity there for Cricket Australia too (and the ECB, and every cricket board the BCCI has rubbed up the wrong way): It can use its hold on these cricketers as leverage in the constant (and often bitter) bargaining that the global cricket administration has become. Want us to block McGrath? No problem, but let's talk about hosting the next World Cup. Pietersen on the ICL list? We'll get him off, but meanwhile those B-list venues for our next tour...

And yet. And yet there is the possibility that, given the vast space that remains untapped in Indian cricket, Chandra can pull something off. For years the BCCI has steadfastly taken for granted the vast legions of footsoldiers of Indian cricket - the umpires, state players, stadium crowds, administrators, average fans; for years it has turned a blind eye to everything but the opportunity to make a quick (and very big) buck; for years, it has done nothing to look at cricket away from the bright lights of the one-day games. Now, it could be hoist on its own petard.

The trick, for Chandra, could be to think big by thinking small. Either small matches in big cities - a Twenty20 game in, say Bombay Gymkhana or Kolkata's CCFC, where one can relax with a glass of beer and watch the fun with PLUs, maybe even be part of the fun (this is the age of reality TV, and a cricket reality show on Chandra's Zee TV has already sent one player to Leicestershire). Or big matches in small towns, where Chandra's empire already has a strong media presence - a one-day game in, say Allahabad or Jalandhar or Bharuch, the sort of place where India's best young players now come from.

Would the fans buy it? That's a tough one; they are the world's most neglected cricket fans and have no love lost for the BCCI but are also notoriously star-conscious. Also, India's cricket culture is not participatory. Yet it's also true that they have never been wooed, made to feel important; if Chandra puts them at the centre of his nascent universe, who knows?

There are other options. In a larger context and in the longer run, India has to find a market for its cricket economy that will not expose the cricketers' shortcomings. Simply put, it means more cricket against the B teams or, more significantly, hijacking the offshore cricket concept. He could take the travelling circus overseas and trawl the NRI markets.

The trick, in any or all of this, is to have serious cricket. Ultimately, WSC succeeded because the players lived up to the hype; the big boys, as Imran so famously boasted, really did play at night. The two Richards were in sublime form and, along with the Chappells and sundry others, fought on level terms with the world's best fast bowlers at their peak. It was great cricket and made great viewing. If Chandra indeed lures Ganguly and Tendulkar to his side, he'd have to ensure they play a very different game to what they've been playing of late.

In all this, of course, there is opportunity for Indian cricket in general. After all, what Chandra is proposing is effectively what the BCCI should have been doing anyway -in terms of building both infrastructure and manpower. If the BCCI feels threatened, it may be stirred into action. If Chandra has held out his hand in genuine partnership, and if the BCCI accepts, Indian cricket can only get better. Which isn't saying much right now but every little bit helps.

The blame game has begun. Greg Chappell has called for a comprehensive review of the team's performance but already many fingers are pointing at him © Getty Images

Sambit Bal

As is the norm with botched-up jobs, India have returned from the West Indies with a bagful of questions. No two ways about it, the World Cup was an embarrassment for India. Not only did they lose to Bangladesh, who have since struggled to put the ball past the square, they never looked like winning against them. Say whatever you will about the format, India didn't look in shape, either mentally or physically, to go any further.

However, as is often the norm with Indian cricket, don't expect too many honest answers. India might get a new coach, perhaps even a new captain, a couple of players will be dropped and the team will travel to Bangladesh to redeem their honour. Trust some TV channel or newspaper to sell the series as the Revenge of the Blue Billion. It's quite likely that Indian cricket will learn nothing.

Failure is a perennial orphan. Don't expect a rush to own up responsibility. Of course many stories will emerge, but most of them will a point a finger at someone else. Greg Chappell has called for a comprehensive review of the team's performance but already many fingers are pointing at him.

Under normal circumstances, a cricket coach would bear only marginal responsibility for a team's failure. But Chappell has been no ordinary coach. He mounted an extraordinarily high-profile campaign to drag Indian cricket forward and his Mission 2007 became a significant signpost for Indian cricket. The blame for the mission's failure cannot be laid at his door alone but he will find himself facing some tough questions.

Questions are already filtering out to the media. Was he too authoritarian? Did he lack the human touch so vital for man-management? Did he have his finger on the pulse of players? Did he get obsessed with his ways and failed to explore any other way? Did he plant the seeds of unrest and mistrust within the team by his frequent slagging off of the players to the media? Did he create a sense of insecurity among a section of players that ultimately led them to play for their place in the side rather than for the team? And finally, did the team achieve the best it could have under him?

What of Rahul Dravid? Did he allow himself to be hijacked by Chappell? Did he lack authority and fire? Did he fail to inspire his teammates and forge a team that would fight together?

And the seniors? Were they aloof and self-absorbed? Were they so focused on protecting their own turf that they ended up stifling the junior players? Did some of them openly promote groupism and try to undermine Dravid? Did Dravid ever receive the kind of support he gave unflinchingly to captains who went before him?

These are all important questions that need to be asked when the review committee of the BCCI meets on April 6. But there are far more important, and deeper, issues without addressing which Indian cricket cannot move forward, and any progress the team makes can only be temporary.

Nothing about Indian domestic cricket could have equipped Sunil Gavaskar to withstand the most hostile pace bowling ever seen in cricket, or Sachin Tendulkar to score hundreds in Australia as a 18-year-old, or Rahul Dravid and Anil Kumble to be so damn tough mentally. They were exceptional as cricketers and men

The biggest question is why, despite the passion, the base and now the wealth, can't India produce a truly world-class team? Why do most Indian batsmen, despite the big averages, come unstuck on pitches that bounce and seam - and now even on those which spin? Why is the bench-strength so thin that they were forced to recall Sourav Ganguly? Why isn't there a single batsman in sight who can challenge for a place in the Indian middle order? And, shockingly, who after Anil Kumble?

Money can buy another coach. Players will line up to become the next captain. But Indian cricket will go nowhere as long as the system continues throwing up soft cricketers. India has produced great players, but that's been despite the system. Nothing about Indian domestic cricket could have equipped Sunil Gavaskar to withstand the most hostile pace bowling ever seen in cricket, or Sachin Tendulkar to score hundreds in Australia as a 18-year-old, or Rahul Dravid and Anil Kumble to be so damn tough mentally. They were exceptional as cricketers and men. Freaks, if you please. A country of one billion people who call cricket a religion shouldn't have to rely on freaks.

For about a couple of years India enjoyed an exceptional run when the batting stars converged as a happy coincidence. Virender Sehwag burst on to the scene and it was too early for bowlers to devise a plan for him, VVS Laxman peaked, Dravid became great, and Tendulkar crafted some big hundreds. And, with runs to back him, Kumble became the bowler that he rarely had the opportunity to be outside India. He tossed the ball up, varied his pace, and added to his repertoire.

But age has caught up with Tendulkar, Laxman's luminance has dulled, Sehwag finds himself batting the demons in the mind and his technical shortcomings, and India have nowhere to go. Call it cyclical but the truth is that India lacks a structure that produces players ready for the international challenge. The pitches are awful, competition scant, team selection is mired in politics and administrators are more focused on self-preservation than development. It would be a miracle if the cricketers who emerged from this structure remained untouched by it.