Specialist opener/bowler may be unfashionable these days but maybe the Test proved specialist close-in fielders are still needed and have to be identified and trained.

When Rahul Dravid, our best first slipper in many years, drops three catches in a day, that's only a bad day. When he drops catches in four out of six innings, that is bad news. The close-in fielding needs work.

Twenty wickets get you wins and on dead, flat tracks, every half-chance you get to take one of those 20 wickets has to be snapped up or you fall too far behind and end up making Shaun Udal and Monty Panesar look like Ramadhin and Valentine or Bedi and Prasanna.

Play five batsmen (hell, play four if the fancy takes you) but always play the best.

To enable this to happen how about “flexibility” used in the long version of the game too?

Your country's top five Test batsmen are not Sehwag, Jaffer, Tendulkar, Dravid and Yuvraj (i.e. Mumbai Test line up and you swap Gambhir in there and that is still not your best); your best five Test bats are Sehwag, Tendulkar, Dravid, VVS Laxman and Yuvraj.

When you want to play your five best batsmen, then in order to do so, accept that you may have to (to use another trendy catch phrase) "challenge players", maybe Dhoni or Yuvraj or anyone else, by making them open.

At the moment it is "flexibility" in ODIs and "we will play the best men in the best positions" in Tests. Sound principles both but one of them is not working.

By trashing the Indian team's overseas Test wins in England, West Indies, Australia, Pakistan and Zim (stronger than they are now) between 2001-2004 to prove unrelated points, we do nothing but take away our own joy.

If the word 'decline' is too upsettting or inaccurate or politically incorrect then let us at least admit the following:

1. In two Tests in 2006 where the series was on the line, we have failed to bat out a day.

2. If Australia came touring tomorrow, we would be toast.

3. Two years ago at this time, you would have not said the same about the Indian Test team.

Call the phenomenon by whatever name you want.

What about the ODI succes in this period vis-a-vis the ODI record between 2003 WC final & mid 2005? Sharda has chosen to ignore that. With Worldcup just a year away, shouldnt ODI performance matter?

Mahesh

In 2004, India played 12 Tests. On 4 occasions India had to bat in the fourth innings. India lost two of those Tests against Australia. India drew when they had to play 3 overs and won when they had to score 120 against SA.

So the truth is they were rarely under pressure in 2004. And now that they are getting themselves in that situation, they are struggling as they did before.

In 2004 our openers got us off to big starts and that made the difference. Without the big starts our Test team is always going to struggle. The management sees this and they are trying to find a long term solution to opening in Test matches which is a specialist position...not subject to the whims of "flexibility" a la pyjama cricket. So, if the best we can do is Jaffer and Sehwag then we stick with them and work with them.

But let's be clear - our opening partnership is the most significant problem in Tests as it can help win AND save matches. The dearth of wicket-taking bowlers is only as significant if not a close second.

Test Match Cricket is dying. It will be dead in a few years. The paying public and television companies have spoken in a loud and clear manner.

Solutions for getting better in ODI cricket.

1. A minimum standard of fitness for all - ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS. For Example - minimum sprint times, ability to throw hard and accurately, catch consistently, run singles hard.
2. Intense physcological evaluation to determine if players can withstand the rigors of an intense highly charged and competitive environment. No place for the likes of Graeme Hick. Only Ranatunga and Ganguly clones (in attitude and outlook only) need apply.
3. Specialist coaches for fielding, throwing and catching. Borrow techniques and expertise from other sports (Baseball, Rugby, football, etc).
4. Implement year round domestic ODI tournaments (similar to the US Baseball Minor Leagues). Only a couple of hundred talented reserves should play. Replicate conditions experienced in international games (play a select number of games abroad if necessary).
5. Pay for performance. Maximum incentives only for team performances. Applied to all - players, coaches, support staff, selectors, BBCI secretaries, groudsmen, etc, etc.
6. Execute Player contracts and make explicit that certain number of hours in a week and certain number of weeks in a year are required for the job. Advertisement and sponsorship work may only be performed during the weekends or on holidays.

Performance enhancing drugs if all else fails. NOT!!!

Cheers

Sitaram Reddi

Sharda's comment about the present plight of the Indian test team seems more or less valid. Though I would like to point out that the five best batsmen he named sound nice on paper. However going in a test without two proper openers would seem foolish. I mean Jaffer did start out well in the England but lost steam by the end.

Whatever the performance of our test team, its heartening to see them do well in the shorter version of the game. I mean 16 successful run chase on trot and all. I only hope we can keep this momentum going till next year. If we win, and I think we can, it won't matter how badly played in a few test series.

If you want to compete best teams(team) in world then success should not be limited to only one form of the game. You should win in both the forms of the games in ODI as well as in Tests match cricket.

See Aus they are true champion, they are champion in both forms of the game.

If we think that after beating lesser teams like England and SL in ODIS we are achieving the heights of Aus's we are wrong we failed against SA.
Getting restricted by SA 2-2 in India that too only with the help of due factor is not a sign of winning team.

But Chappel & Dravid are doing great job by trying to make team as much flexible as possible. Only problem India is facing today is a real wicket taking ballers who can take 20 wickets in test match cricket we have Kumble but he also need some support from other end. Which we can get from Irfan but he is completely ineffective when conditions are not supportive I think Munaf Patel is a very telented young prospect but I am really afraid he should also not become like Agarkar who promiced a lot but failed to covert his talent. I feel even if we are taking 5 ballers most of the times 2-3 of our ballers will be for feeling the empty spots.

And regarding feilding we need to find a support for Dravid in slips and short leg is very important position..

Everyone will remeber Akash Chopra for the starts that he gave along with Sehwag in Aus and Pak in 2003-04 season but we forgot his ability to catch a cricket ball in critical position like short leg and this was one of the main reason (hidden) in India's success in Pak series
But as per our tendancy to forget good things very soon we forgot this and see we are paying for this by loosing Mumbai test match just due to so many lost catches.

The most "flexible" thing India have done is to get rid of a non-performing captain, whose personality was an increasing liability. Fielding improvements and more consistent batsmen will follow.

The present team under Dravid/ Chappell inspire more confidence than any Indian team before that
a) they will bring out the best abilities of all the team members
b) there will be no petty politics (except the unavoidable Ganguly issue)

Flexibility in opening position?? huhh...
Sorry I don't agree on that one.

Opening in test-cricket is completely different ballgame as compared to ODI, an opener needs a mindset, patience, perseverance, focus to play long inning , to build base for rest of players, and most important ability to take shine off the new ball.
Even asking one-down specialist like Dravid, to open inning is grossly unfair.
There is a huge difference in the mindset of an opener and a first-down player.

Probably we've the world’ most technically correct player coming at number 3, that leads us to believe that he can also easily open the inning but that’s not true at all.
(Though world's best number 3 is Ponting and Aussie team management never disturb his position)

Experimentations should be left to ODI only, longer version of games require tremendous skills to play from sessions to sessions unlike few overs here n there in ODI.

In fact, all positions in Test match are specialist position.

And I agree with your take on need of specialist close-in fielders as well.

Jiet puts forward a good point - in 2004 we rarely got ourselves in the position where we had to bat fourth and put ourselves under pressure.

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Wouldn't you rather score big in your first innings (as India did in three tests Tests in Australia and Pakistan that year), so that you don't have to worry about batting again? Then the question of fourth innings doesn't even arise. You could simply wrap it up by an innings (as happened twice in a single series in Pakistan).

The problem is not just with the top order. Our middle order has also weakened to an extent that it is now difficult to touch scores of 600+, or even 500, in the first innings (not counting the dead-beat tracks at Lahore and Faisalabad) that we did on a regular basis in 2004.

Laxman has been sacrificed in order to play 5 batsmen. Why? laxman at his best is more devastating than Yuvraj can hope to be (even on current form).

Ganguly has been shunted out due to worries by the management that he will ruin the atmoshphere. How about regularly failing to bat out final days - that doesn't help the atmosphere, I'm sure.

Sachin has been dogged by injuries - loose talk by Chappell 'promoting' him from dashing player to old mentor hasn't helped.

And finally - where is Sehwag? Or his cricketing brain, rather. Would someone mind checking if it was accidentally locked away with John Wright's baggage?

ok, the best indian batting lineup listed by Sharda is the answer to the problem we are facing - Sehwag, Sachin, Dravid, VVS Laxman and Yuvraj Singh. Dravid aside, all compulsive stroke makers, who have horrible 4th innings records. When was the last time India played out a fourth innings to earn a fighting, creditable draw?
Even in Pakistan in the first two tests when the openers scored aplenty, life in the test team was rosy, and when the openers failed, we lost the test. How much longer do we experiment with wicketkeepers and middle order batsmen as openers? If Jason Gillespie were an Indian, he would be the most prolific opening batsman we would have produced and when his bowling falls apart, we would find it tough to accept him in the team. Let us build horses for courses, and let the specialist do their job. If it means giving them a few matches to settle in so be it.

This is a very poorly written article. You said that "specialist batsmen/bowlers may be unfashionable these days, but maybe the Test proved that specialist close-in fielders are still needed." You change your course of thought mid-sentence. Not only that, if you support the "specialist" batsmen, such as openers, than how can you "challenge players"? Dhoni or Yuvraj aren't your specialist openers, or have I been living in the dark the past couple of years?

Opening against or with a new cricket ball is an art in itself for a batsmen or bowler. Not everybody fits the mold and even those who do have to hone their skills to be able to perform with a new ball. However the difference in the ability of players with a new ball is considerably negated in the one day version of the game. This ofcourse is due to multiple reasons such as the format of the game itself. 50 overs a side is not quite sufficient time to expose the inadequacy of players in terms of technique, temperment and their abilities. Hence, even an Harbajan might get 40-50 odd runs on top of the order, on a given day. However the Test form of cricket is a completely different ball game. Unlimited overs, different attacking feild setttings and a completely different mind-set makes Test match cricket a much more ruthless and competent form of cricket. This form of cricket in my opinion does require specialist people with specialist roles so that in a 'test' situation they dont crumble and withstand the pressure. A Dhoni can smash a Pollock or a Warne when he has to face them maximum 10 overs each in a ODI, with the field in or spread out. But in test cricket if hes asked to open, against a top international bowler with a new ball with 3-4 fielders in the slip cordon and the remaining all around the bat, it is indeed a different proposition and more often than not in my opinion he wouldnt succeed. He might even get 30-40 odd runs, but then again those runs in ODI's might be substantial but wouldnt help much to win or save a test match.

Reiterating the point, Test match cricket requires specialists players who know their roles and can perform them well. Thats not to say that experimentation is not a part of Test cricket, it certainly is, but in terms of strategies on the field and not so much with the players as in ODI's.

I don’t think India is playing that bad as it is hyped by media. It is just they started playing so good in ODI that everyone is expecting them to do same in test. It is easy to change the ODI statistics, but for 5 days match, they need more time to be flexible for what they are doing now. So just give them time and see what they can do. It is too early to discuss about their merit for the sake of discussion. Come on! Do not you appreciate what they are doing now and can not you stay for a while to see whether current team is improving its current test status. At least they are at no. 3. Do not draw line so early.

I would agree with much of what Sharda says, although I am not sure that Laxman is the force he once was in Tests. I also think that as matters stand, Australia are a diminished side, short of bowling quality, and with cracks in their batting. I think that they would struggle more in India than Sharda suggests. I suspect though that the acid test will be India's form on tour, and here I think that they will perform poorly in Tests, competently/well in ODI. I would predict that their batting would falter in say English conditions with seam and swing available, while their spin attack will look less impressive (with the exception of Kumble). My guess is that the Test pecking order will be Australia and England fighting for the top spot, followed by Pakistan, with India and New Zealand fighting for number 4, perhaps with South Africa improving. Things may change, but I just don't see India having the basis to get much higher in the Test rankings.

I certainly dont think the Test team is declining in an alarming way. Sure, there are reasons for concern. But declining, certainly no. Dravid/GC partnership began with SL home series, which we won. Excluding the draw, the remaining two test wins were not very convincing. Ok. But what rule says a win is a win only if you win comfortably. There are many factors that might decide the eventual win convincing or not. For example, you underestimate the opposition, you make bad decisions during the match, ease off the pressure a bid, some of the players being rusty and so on. Coming to SL series, those were hard fought wins. At that time of the series, we had the SG controversy going on too. But bottomline is we won the series.
Now coming to Pakistan, first test ended in a draw. On a featherbed of a pitch, Pak posted huge score. Our bowlers were tonked all over. Nice. But what happened to their bowlers when we batted. We posted above 400 without losing a wicket, surviving the pressure of first innings score, surviving the hype of the world's fastest 'bowler'. Now coming to 2nd test, same recipe. Dhoni along with Pathan played excellent innings under pressure. So if you back and see, and see session by session, tell me how many sessions Pak won, how many India won. Your guess is as good as mine. Coming to third match, after Pathan's heroics, Akmal produced a gem of an innings that reminded me of Sachin's Manchester innings. And when its our turn, we crumbled. And more importantly, that was the deciding test. So suddenly its a 1-0. And the people back home who had been waiting for something like that to happen, pounded on like hungry wolves. All the good work in the previous tests was ignored and they spit venom over that only test. Coming to Eng, all this main players not available etc etc., I dont buy it. KP,flintoff,Harmisson,Jones(Geraint and Simon) were the architects of that historic victory. They were all playing the series except Jones. I certainly dont think Vaughan and Tresco would have had made any difference. Anyway, out of underestimation or some other factor, they drew with us. And here too,after the Mumbai loss, hungry wolves hunted in hundreds. All other factors ignored. Just people have been waiting to fulfill their interests. Who cares about the team. If you want more proof, why our Test team is not declining while there are areas for huge improvement, ask the Aussies.

The problem with the Indian team does not stop at poor planning or lack of talent. It goes all the way up and to the very core of the entire cricketing establishment. Besides Kiran More, do any of the present day "selectors" have any bonafides as far as international cricket is concerned?

And coming to our own cricketing stalwarts, let us, once and for all and accept that Indian cricket (representing a fundamentally amateurish character) has never been in its entire history a world-beating professional organization. What we have had is a smattering of a few good men who have on their days dazzled the global cricketing community with their talent and driven Indian cricket lovers to wild frenzies. These greats have given world recognition to Indian cricket, no doubt, but sadly, left Indian fans with the utterly baseless expectation that the Indian team will beat every opponent in the game. It's high time, we as Indians stopped living in this world of make-believe.

I have too much time nowdays or I am just passionate about the game to read all these articles, some comments and post my own comments.

Anyways, I like some of the specifics prescribed in Sharda's article. The close-in fielding is too important to miss. To prop up our batting and challenge the guys are some ideas which I share with her (or him, really dont know, sorry about that).

The comparison of different eras is inevitable. But selectively choosing a period to suit your point is not my idea of doing things. If you ask most of us, we would agree that India did really well during early part of Ganguly's era. But India really suffered towards the end by collective decline of Ganguly, Tendulkar and Laxman.(Ganguly being the captain had a moral responsibility (like tendulkar had done). and Ganguly is no tendulkar to be kept in the team for legacy. If Ganguly had just heeded Chappell's advise of giving up captaincy, probably we wouldnt be as divided.)

In test matches, we need 4-5 decent batsman who can grind the opposition for 5 days rather than one tendulkar (4-5 tendulkars would be heavan tho) and present pack of young bowlers to win more games ( and no Ganguly please anymore, I just pissed the shit out of a guy I know who stopped supporting Indian team because Ganguly was dropped).

This article fails to take cognizance of the fact that ODI's and tests are two different ball games in terms of technique and specialists required. ODI's seem to be going the 'total football' route with every team trying to develop players with more than just one dimension to their games out of the three possible. Test cricket however is a test of true technique. Specialist openers being one of the main ones. India's unsuccessful search to replace the maestro Gavaskar being a case in point. Yes, in India we might get away with playing just Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Yuvraj as our 'best five Test bats', but in Perth or Headingley? Its a fate not worth contemplating. By playing bits and pieces players as openers like Manoj Prabhakar and Nayan Mongia, we definitely took a huge step backwards. As the success of Messrs. Hayden and Langer shows, strong openers go a long way towards building a successful test team.

Do you really think that Sehwag, Tendulkar, Dravid, VVS Laxman and Yuvraj are the top 5 batsmen.
With Sachin averaging just around 25 from his last 30 odd test matches, how can i team playing 5 batsmen afford to give him that cution, even sehwag is not in best of his form. Dont you feel that we need to give some chances to yongesters and help them blossom. As Yuvraj has grabbed the opportunity by replacing the man how was no where near his best.

Our test match problems are not so simple, there is not just one problem , there are a few . I could list some of them :
1) Lack of penetrative fast bowlers,2)Lack of good openers ( I feel for a good test side atleast one or ideally both should consitently score more than 50 rus in any case the partnership should be worth more than 50 in about 14-17 overs consistently).3) Lack of good catchers , although India's ground fielding has improved , our close in catching including the wicket keeper has gone downwards.
Sharda's point about going in with the 5 best batsmen makes a lot of sense, but who will want to become the "bali ka bakra". If I was to take a decision ( and I know there will be alot of brickbats for me ) I would have loved to try Pathan to open with Sehwag , we used to do this with Manoj Prabhakar who I felt had worse technique than IP (even Shastri used to do this but he had much better technique than either) so its not as if it has never been done if it makes us feel any better. Will it get us consistent 50-70 runs opening partneships ? I dont know but atleast it gives us more flexibility.
Again as I said these are not the be all and end all of our problems , there are more Like the mind of a certain Mr Tendulkar , etc, etc. He has waned as the other batsmen have waxed , if he can come back and win over his mind and give all the best season of his life ( definitely his last too ) and score like Ponting is doing right now, no one can even come close to us.

Thanks, Sharda, for sharing your thoughts on this subject. Your points are incisive, specific and I daresay I agree with all of them.

I would like to add the following :
- It is always difficult to distinguish between a bad patch and a terminal decline. In the case of Tendulkar, inspite of his patchiness in recent times, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - provided he is physically fully fit to play for the country (We should not be carrying semi-injured players in the side. It is unhealthy, both for the player and for the side).

So, my take on Sachin is that we know what he is capable of. What he really needs is some confidence-building (a bit of luck will not harm either). What he most certainly does not need is derision and "Endulkar"-like comments at this stage in his career.

- I am afraid I will have to be a little less charitable about Sehwag. Like most Indians, I have thoroughly enjoyed his cavalier batting. But if I park my emotion aside for a moment and look coldly at his recent dismissals, I see a very aggravating and disturbing trend which tells me just two things - he tends to make the same mistakes again and again (and please don't tell me "that is Sehwag for you!") and secondly, bowlers seem to now have specific game plans for him that he has not been able to successfully counter.

The first reason is aggravating - because you know that he can put the fear of God in any bowler if only he eschews some of those unnecessary shots. The second reason is disturbing because it means his reservoir of runs may continue to run very dry if he does not out-think his opposition.

Is he just going through a bad patch ? I would love to think so but I am not very sure about this. So for me, "Sehwag the entertainer" needs to become "Sehwag the consistent" first before I give him a clean chit.

- If you look at the game over the last 30 years or so, you will find that teams which have blooded players at regular intervals have managed to retain a healthy balance between experience and youth. It is difficult to drop experienced players. But Australia have become masters at doing that in recent times. Perhaps they have learnt from their lessons of the mid-80s. I think it would do India good to take that bold step and blood a Venugopal Rao (for example) in Tests. Do it now - while you still have some experienced players around who can coach the youngster and make him a part of the future. Dravid came into the side because of Sanjay Manjrekar not being available. When Vishy was selected in 1969, it was a bold move - which, fortunately for India, paid off. There may be the next Vishy somewhere in India but we will know only if we take that chance.

This will also keep all players on their toes as the message will go out loud and clear that there is no room for complacency.

- The batting : You have made a very valid point about India not having been able to last a full day in two crucial matches. At least at Karachi, the bowling was outstanding. Mumbai was largely suicide. The message here is clear : for Tests, you need Test temperament. Take your flashiness somewhere else please. This cannot be emphasised strongly enough.

- The bowling : I almost had tears in my eyes when I saw Munaf clean up Hoggard with a beauty of a yorker, an express delivery to boot. I have hopes about Munaf and Sreesanth. My main worry here is - how long before they too get injured. As it is, fast bowling is a hard job, especially in Indian conditions. Now that we have finally got two bowlers who show real international-level promise, we need to treasure them and not let them go the injury route of Nehra, Zaheer and Balaji. We really need to mix and match our bowlers such that they are protected against injury. Of course, we need to continue to work on the "bench strength". I would also like to see Pathan concentrate on getting back some of his early-day penetration. He shows that in flashes now but is increasingly worryingly off-colour. A case of too much strain on slender shoulders ? I hope not.

- The fielding : You have said it all. I could never have said it better.

- The captaincy : To be absolutely honest, I am not totally impressed by Dravid so far. Yes, he says the right things (we know he reads a lot) but what matters to me is what happens out there, on the field. The bowling changes, the field placements, the ability to raise your team's spirits when the game is being taken away from you - this is what matters to me. Dravid is a superb batsman and leads by example but I need to see more astuteness on the field to be able to give him an unconditional thumbs-up as captain. Having said that, I will gladly give Dravid a proper run at the job. The last thing we want is even more turmoil in Indian cricket in what has been easily its most tumultuous season in decades.

I have a lot more to say but this is already a long post. I will be glad to add more if you feel my thoughts make sense.

Thanks once again for a very interesting and "feet-on-the-ground" lead on this subject.

I agree with Sharda on the choice of 5 best batsmen. I would like to make a point that Laxman should be batting at no. 3 instead of Dravid for the simple reason that Laxman is far more positive than Dravid. Dravid is always prone to just hanging around without scoring. That works well for him as he has got that kind of temperament. But that makes life difficult for other batsmen. Remember Asif's comment that he likes to bowl batsmen like Dravid as they allow him "to get into his groove".

With Laxman in team, we will have a good close-in fielder. Of course we need to work a lot in that area.

Good one. The test team certainly has slipped (the 'slip' started before Chappel but continues with Chappel).

Also a general point - can we have a little more gentlemanly kind of posts and responses? There is way too much vitriol! No point blaming the odd respondent from the 'East' when experienced (and persumably responsible)jouranlists like Dileep need to accuse people of 'Being soft in the head', to make a point. Reminds me of school debates!I wont be surprised if Ashok does not want a debate with Dileep, till Dileep grows up.

I am very much a Southie!

When was the last time, we batted out a 5th day to secure a draw?

Two tests, where we lost this year were because our batsmen did not stick around for day 5 or day 4. Can we mention 3-4 tests where one of our so-called batters "saved" a match for us? Few or almost None. So all this talk about our batsmen being the world's best is hogwash. To be best they have to prove not just on flat tracks on day 1,2 and3 but also on days 4 and 5.

I still think that over-analysis is part of the problem of nearly every cricket team. I think it was Ian Chappel who said that you can get yourself stuck in a rut by over-analysising and thinking too much about what you're doing.

If the Indian team did fielding and catching practice for 12 hours a day, six days a week, there's no gurantee it would have any positive bearing in an actual match. Fielding drills don't comprise of catching infront of huge crowds and under immense pressure of your fickle minions. I think a lot of Indian fans expect the players to behave like robots --- but don't you see? that's the beauty of the game. Sometimes, thing out of the ordinary happen on the cricket field. And some of you are starting to forget.

Honestly, All I think Indian cricket can do is to give itself the best set of players available in the country -- and set a few systems in place to correct the flaws of each player WITHOUT burning them out, or making them lose their natural talent. Are the selectors and Chappel doing this? Oddly enough, I think they are doing all they can to make the team a success. The rest, is down to the individual players, their talent, a tinge of lady luck and the fingers of the umpires I'm afraid.

If we start with the assumption that we are talking of a decline in Test performance standards as compared to the ODI performance during Greg Chappell’s tutelage, then for a start let us restrict our analysis only to the Test Series where Chappell has been involved

The first one was in Zimbabwe. We can safely say today, that neither Greg Chappell nor the members of the Indian Team were focused on playing cricket in that series. That series will go down as the one where Saurav Ganguly opened the Exit Gates for himself

Post this; we have had two other test series. Both in the sub-continent. One in Paksistan.We lost the series for two days of bad test cricket. Against England, for a majority of the series, we seemed to have it well under control, till it all went wrong in Mumbai. But we still did not lose the series

Instead of making broad analysis on the basis of two lost tests under a new captain and a new coach, and making suggestions - can we pause and appreciate the fact that if a think tank is able to achieve consistency in one format, it is POSSIBLE to achieve the same in the longer format?

I certainly do not feel that everything is right with the TEST team. But the point is, most of the factors that make this team incomplete, and not in Australia's test class or England's at its best - have been factors for most of this decade

What are these factors? There was a time when we did not have a single opener worth mentioning. We have one today - so let’s stop castigating him and allow Sehwag to sort his issues with Chappell. In any case, his test form has not seen too much of a dip and his mere attitude at the crease makes the best Test bowlers tremble.Yes, we need to get Sehwag a partner but the previous think tank was not willing to nurture one. Let us see if we can find one now.

I do not see any issues with the middle order, with or without Laxman. However, I can’t see how Kaif can be played ahead of him while Laxman is still match fit. There is simply no case to it. Laxman has saved more than one match winning innings both in the sub continent and outside and against all types of opposition.

Coming to the bowlers - I feel we are finally on the right track. The move to play five bowlers on dry tracks, of which three are pacers, will throw up our best possible pace combo when we get to go abroad. Our two spinners select themselves simply because they are the best we have

Sharda's points on close in fielding are well made, for things seem to have gone wrong there drastically after Laxman has been left out. At the same time, Jaffer was not in the same class as Akash Chopra in that department

And most important, can someone please say enough about the fact that we have finally got a world class wicket keeper batsman?

Give Greg and Rahul some time. I feel the planning and process are pretty evident. What they need is time. And a board that gives Test Cricket it’s due and plays enough practice matches before tests start

I would genuinely like to know if this is the same Sharda who writes for India today. I have always found Sharada very insightful and a very good writer anytime I read her articles in India Today.

Thats why this article left me with the feeling this could not have been the same person. Many have identified the inconsistencies in the article itself.

In one breath she metnions need for specialist fielders and then without a blink she mentions that we need to play our best batsmen irresepective of their position?

Which is it Madam? Whom would she have open for India? Dravid..who doesnt want to do it? Laxman..who doesnt want to do it? Or Yuvraj ..who doesnt want to do it?

It is much easier to follow the arguments if those who post let us know what is the best team we can put on the field and why each of them is selected to be in the team and why there is no alternative to the chosen one.

We talk about lack of wicket-taking bowlers, but what about the fielders ?
As I recollect, our spin quartet of the 70's & 80's was backed by - Solkar, Wadekar, Venkat... in the clos-in cordon. I have heard that world-class batsmen were scared of playing the ball on the on-side due to Solkar. No such worries for today's batsmen when they play against India !