Must we however, always look to management decisions and attribute results to supposed shifts in operational rationales? Perhaps, this is symptomatic of a society that makes heroes out of managers and seeks to canonize management principles into guiding lights of life.

Let us look back at the type of cricketing decisions that were made during the Ganguly-Wright tenure. Let us consider the most far-reaching of them:

1. A middle-order batsman who was known as a fair biffer of average bowling and bowled part-time off-breaks was suddenly slotted in as opener.
2. A half-forgotten teenaged offie whose action had been under the scanner and was low on confidence was given the task of leading a Kumble-less attack against the world's best team.
3. Spotting the fluency of his batting in the first innings of a crucial test, a brilliant wristy middle-order bat who had been low on confidence after seemingly endless attempts at making him open, was promoted to one-drop in the second innings.
4. Two youngsters were blooded in the Kenya ICC knockout and both performed brilliantly, considering this was their debut series. Another middle-order bat and electric fielder was picked soon after. All three were persisted with, even when they lost form.
5. A teenaged 'keeper was picked and was asked to open against arguably the fastest bowler in the world a couple of series later, despite performing poorly behind the stumps.
6. An exciting strokeplayer of a 'keeper was picked, slotted in at number 3 and played among the fiercest ODI knocks played by an Indian.
7. A left-arm swing bowler of great potential was picked and later, his batting started to develop.
8. A right arm swing bowler of immense potential was picked and performed brilliantly on his first full tour.
9. Arguably India's best legspinner of all time, was dropped from time to time, on occasion when the younger offie was felt to be more potent.

Let us examine some of the team management decisions in more recent times:
1. Promote Pathan to part-time open, at times one-drop.
2. Push Yuvraj up the order to number 4.
3. Blood three fast-medium bowlers and an exciting middle order bat and fielder.

Are these three vastly different in nature from the previous set of nine? Surely not. Couldn't some of the first set of decisions be termed experimentation? Absolutely. The decision to promote Sehwag was surely the biggest experiment of them all. So, what is the difference between the team toward the end of the Ganguly-Wright tenure and the present team? The full emergence of a 'keeper batsman, the flowering of Pathan's batting talent, the entry of three fast-medium bowlers and the maturing of Yuvraj. It is worth remembering that the first two events had begun to happen during the Ganguly-Wright partnership and the early grooming of Yuvraj was also done then. Therefore, it is more than likely that the first two would have happened irrespective of who was in charge of team management.

Yuvraj probably feels more secure in the team right now because he is part of the test team as well. The step up to test level that happened more consistently after Ganguly's departure was at a crucial stage of his career. Equally, we must not forget that if not for Ganguly, he might never have been in the one-day side for so long.

What has happened after the passing trough in India's ODI performance graph, is a very natural evolutionary process. The nucleus of a strong side gets built and then as a result of a strong back-up system (the A tours and the under-19s), newer all-round players emerge. If you look at the Australian and England teams of the last decade or so, much the same things have happened. Border built a side from scratch (to draw a parallel, if England at the time was as strong as the current Australian side, dare I say Australia would have lost in the '87 World Cup finals), Taylor, Waugh and Ponting have taken it to newer levels. Hussain made a strong side, Vaughan has built on its gains. Similarly will Dravid.

Have we read reports that have stressed so much on the elimination of deadwood when the captains left these good sides that later became great(Hussain admittedly left at exactly the right time)? Did we hear the term experimentation being shouted from the rooftops? Good decisions have been made, but let us not glorify them.

Our cricket is not alone in this regard. On a recent show on one of India's premier TV news channels, there was a vote for the person whom fellow Bangaloreans would be most proud to call a Bangalorean. The great Physicist CV Raman and poor old Vishwesharaiya never figured in the list that was handed to the voters.

Do not get me wrong. Dravid and Chappell are doing a very good job (Dravid's field placings for instance in the one-dayers have been more well thought-out than Ganguly's, and Chappell has been a good influence on young batsmen), I'd at times be happier though if they acknowledged theirs was just a logical conclusion, an evolution, of a process that was started a while back, by Ganguly and Wright. We as a nation, shall be much the better for some proper perspective. And, perhaps then, we shall enjoy our successes even more.

Postscript: The supposed downswing in the test graph is not really a downswing as Dileep correctly points out in his piece on Wicket-to-wicket. Our batting helped us tide over a lack of penetration in bowling, but batting can help you win tests only so much.

Don't mind it too much. I really think that it's job of a handful of journalists who think that mindless analysis and conclusions make people think they are quite smart.

In fact there is a complete loss of perspective in many more important things, e.g. instead about mindless thrashing on 7 ODIs (there shouldv'e been lesser played in the first place, BCCI coffers overflowing :-)) sports journalists (or cricket journalists??) could've really analysed India's performance in various sports categories in the recent Commonwealth games. There sure are many eye-openers waiting for the Sports Ministry to bother about rather than cloying countless ODIs with random picks of cricket players.

I feel the 2nd list can actually be a little longer. Agree to your perspective though.

I cannot resist rephrasing you from a different perspective. if I am asked ONE reason for the variation in Indian results in the two forms I'd say it is essentially because number of key performers in the ODI side has gone up to 5+ (Dravid, Yuvraj, Dhoni, Pathan and Raina, plus the usual suspects Sachin and Harbhajan), while the same figure is down to just two in Tests (Dravid and Kumble).

As you said Krish, we need to let each decision by either management that went into this current standing be termed 'good', 'bad' or 'jury out' and leave it at that instead of resorting to hyperboles like 'unprecedented' or 'horrific'.

Good research and critical observation. It is sad that in Indian cricket scenario, Tigers and Clowns are made in a day or two ..

wright and ganguly were good in promoting younsters and bulding a strong team.but at the end of wright's tenure the test teams performance was stagnant and ODI down the hill. with chappel and ganguly combination its was still the same. dravid got the same team as ganguly and form day one the ODI performance has jumped sky high. dravid captaincy must have made some difference.but the test team hasn't improved now that is a bit of concern.

One thing we always underplay is the challenge chappell went through to dislogde the philsohophy of continuing with a under-performing captain (though helped with the change in guard of bcci administrators). Thus, the attitude now is if you cant perform you would be replaced. But yes, not everything is this fair. Eg Sehwag and Kaif, but if they dont perform in the coming series of West Indies and Champions trophy, nobody will carry them through. Now as to Ganguly-Wright partnership, it laid a good foundation for an emerging Indian team time and again but it never was able to capitalize on that foundation, we dithered away after a fabulous Australian and Pakistan tour to lose against Aussies and Pakis in India. In this regard I'd say if Dravid can win over a longer period like Aussies, his partnership with Chappell would recieved all the flowers...such is the world ...it salutes the rising sun.

I agree with Krishna that the things that are happening now should not be a sole cause of the action taken by Chappel-Dravid pairs. Partly, it is an evolution that has been started in Write-Gangly era. However, it is arguably true that the late misery of Indian team under Ganguly opened the way for Dravid-Chappel evolution. It is pointless to measure how much credit should be given to Ganguly or Dravid. The basic is “the team required something which Ganguly failed to provide as a captain and Dravid and Chappel filled the gap beautifully so far”. If not perfect, but it is definitely better than what the team was doing before Chappel took over. So let’s not confuse everyone by pointing finger towards individual. As a whole, this is an evolution that was inevitable irrespective of who took the rein of Indian Cricket Team. But for every move, there must be a leader to take the initiative. Credit must be given to Chappel/Dravid for implementing the strategy on the base which was previously built by Ganguly.

Thanks again (to cricinfo writers) for posting a soul-searcher’izer of an article! The case in point is universal and true, I believe, for all aspects of our society – not just cricket or sports. It all boils down to the need for metamorphosis in the way we think, analyze and work. The need of the hour of our society today, is for us to have clear perspectives of our past and clearer visions for future – for ourselves and for our society. Time is ripe for such metamorphosis – which I think is imminent.

Today’s apparent prosperity in our society does not mean that we were not prosperous yesterday or that our present generation is doing “better” than those of our past. In retrospect, that after 50 years of independence we are at last able to allocate time for such soul-searching, is all thanks to our rejuvenating standards of living; which again is possible, thanks to the perseverant struggles of three preceding generations (or more) over these past 5 decades (and more). We have got to set our perspectives right.

The signs are encouraging for an optimistic, near-future, where rational and futurist thinkers with clear perspectives will predominate our society’s populace. Through such predominance will emanate future generations that will, hopefully, walk our talks.

Just to fill in the gaps... Sir C V Raman was from Trichy, Tamil Nadu. Otherwise a nice article.

Interesting set of points, but it appears you're missing the basic argument that people claim defines the difference between this era and the last. As you point out, Ganguly-Wright 'persisted' with certain players when they judged their confidence was the problem. Dravid-Chappell, on the other hand, have repeatedly said that nobody' place on the team - even Dravid's - is safe. It is certain that Ganguly would never have agreed to that; whether because he disagreed with the approach, or because in that case the first person to go would have to be himself, is something people can disagree on.
In addition, a good proportion of your examples of G-W's farsighted decisions are pretty much a matter of following established policy laying out the selection of new faces; indeed the other hand, if you look at the number of new faces picked versus the number who made an impact, I fancy you wont find a difference between the G-W and the Azhar eras in the former, but will in the latter. My claim is that, given the increase in the quality of bowling overall at the domestic level (or maybe the quality of pitches) batsmen with slightly better technique, fielders willing to dive, and bowlers who can swing it more frequently are emerging at a quicker pace. So a lot of what you claim are innovations of the G-W era are simply G-W taking the same approach, but with access to a pool of, say Yuvraj, Kaif, and company, where earlier you had Badani and Bhardwaj. Similar players, similar argument for selection, but with a definite quality difference.
Comparing G-W to Nasser's England or Border's Australia is utterly absurd. In Border's case, he rebuilt a team decimated by the retirement of a golden generation, somewhat like what we must expect in the next couple of years; In Nasser's case, he and Fletcher completely restructured the process of selection, rejigged the level of discipline in the team and suddenly county cricket seemed to be turning out better players than earlier. G-W simply did nothing of the sort. They were simply average, and the results reflected that.

Just to answer a couple of points:

Non-cricketing: The poll done was for people who had become Bangaloreans (sort of honorary Bangaloreans).

Cricketing: Why would it be absurd to compare Hussain's England or Border's Australia with Ganguly's India? Border's Australia never ever beat the West Indies whereas Ganguly's India actually did beat and draw with the world's best at the time. In fact, B's A started out losing pretty much every test they played (home and abroad). India under G fared a lot better against Aus as a rule than Nasser's Eng.

The fact that players who were not performing would be dropped was happening even during the G era, it's just that it's a bit more celebrated now. The only person who has actually been dropped because of lack of performance now is Ganguly. Well, perhaps Zaheer too. Who else has actually been dropped?

"Border's Australia never ever beat the West Indies whereas Ganguly's India actually did beat and draw with the world's best at the time."

I find the above statement quite ridiculous.

WI have NOT been the world's best since long before "G's India" happened. It was a team that was getting challenged from 1993 by England and Australia.

Border's Australia faced a WI team that was way too good. G's India faced a WI with Merv Dillon as "spearhead'.

Thought before comment is good, generally. The world's best at the time is Australia not West Indies. Quite obviously.

I know Ganguly-supporters(and there are quite a few of them out there) would hate me for saying this. But Ganguly would never drop himself or his supporters in the team if they performed below par. He is too selfish a person to do such a thing. But with Dravid you can be sure that he is going to put his hand up and own up responsibility at the slightest hint that he is beginning to become a liability to the team. It's just the way he approaches the game - with honesty and great pride in leading his country.

That reflects a fundamental difference in attitudes between the G-W and D-C eras. The players in D-C era are willing to accept new challenges, take resposibilities and be counted for their actions. You never had the same feeling when Ganguly was around. About Sehwag, Kaif - the only reason I feel they are being persisted with during their current lean phases is the World Cup coming up next year. We all know how explosive Sehwag can be at the top when he is on song and he was definitely an integral part of Chappell's plans for the World Cup. I remember several instances when Chappell spoke of Sehwag's role as an impact player at the top of the order when he first took over as coach. Similarily Kaif, with his remarkable ability in the field and his positive attitude in general is one of the key players in the team. Removing them at this juncture would leave Chappell with only a small window in which to find equally effective players for the World cup. This I think justifies their continued presence in the team.

The author doesn't touch upon why , in the first place, our ODI performances got so miserable in the last year of JW-SG tenure. And two, how can such a disastrous dip be termed a platform for evolution?

While I agree that our stupid media attributes everything happenning to the team management, the author should take a close look at which of the JW-SG era 'decisions' he lists are actually revolutionary or innovative or trend-setting or pioneering. Not many I'm afraid.

Finally, please desist from comparing the team under Ganguly to Border's Australia. (Nice touch though - and possibly one that secures Ganguly's place in history.) Here's why:

When we produce bowlers that can dominate world cricket, we'll have that golden period that follows the 'build-up'. Unlike Border or Nasser, the Ganguly era gave us not one bowler to carry us forward. In fact, in my books, the BIGGEST mistake of that management was failing to evualate long-term potential of bowlers and persisting with mediocrity (whether due to skills or attitude or fitness) like Zaheer Khan, Ashish Nehra, Murali Karthik, Ajit Agarkar and even Harbhajan Singh. This has costed us much more than anything. Today, we have a newbie attack that has to be built from scratch -- hardly what one would call a recipe for transition to world-beating Taylor or Vaughan sides.

Another thing to consider: In the 10 years since VVS made is debut, we have not unearthed one genuine Test class batsmen. Sehwag, with his Test average is the only aberration but a short-lived one it may be, given his obvious technical shortcomings. So if we are talking about a team built for the future, where are the next generation TEST quality batsmen that JW-SG bequeathed us? Rahul Dravid perhaps?

Dravid was vice captain in Wright and Ganguly time . he knows very well who did what thank you.

when he talks about Wright he has a big smile and a light in his eyes . and said at the time of his leaving Wright has laid a great foundation it will be great if we find the right coach to carry it forward.

Dravid has a smile of smart man when question are asked about Ganguly, that is if wants to smile at the question and the media person . other wise his face is expressionless. and he has only few things to say about his captaincy , it goes like this ,all my captains have given me a chance to show my talent .i have learnt from all my captains Azhar , Sachin, Jadeja , Ganguly. that says it all.

With the spate of ODIs I feel not enough emphasis is being given to the need for all batsmen to have a sound defence technique both of front and back foot.This is probably because of the some of our batsmen have done well even without any technique.The other thing which surprises me is that there are hardly any backfoot players or who play the horizontal shots from those who are on the verge of selection to the National team from those seen on TV.The NCA needs to address these aspects so that the above mentioned aspects become instinctive to every batsman of promise.On the other hand players at the top of the order have to be courageous physically as well.This can be seen in how they cope up with the short pitched stuff, to know whether they will ever make it on bouncy tracks and/or against genuine pace. It is no use therefore to just look polished and stylish technically when you are afraid of being hit.

Answering Mahi:

1. The temporary blip was in ODIs mostly, and this type of blip is fairly normal between phases. It's tough to attribute this to any one cause, some kind of generally jaded appearance to the batting, injuries to batsmen and bowlers etc. were possible causes. It's almost as if it is your wish to blame Ganguly solely for the blip, which is a bit ridiculous.

2. Munaf Patel and Pathan are two bowlers who could if taken care of properly, become bowlers in the mould of Harmison and Hoggard. That is not as outlandish a comparison as it might seem to you now. Harmison was a very nervous starter in Hussain's time if you remember. And Hoggard was very ordinary to start with.

It's interesting to see opinions such as yours because again, it seems to me, that we are interested in trashing the Indian team, more than keeping a bit of perspective.