A couple of weeks back, a book named Mission domination, the unfinished quest was released.
The book’s theme seems to allude to the current Indian Test team’s capability to dominate Test cricket like the West Indies team of the ’80s and the Australian team of the 2000s.
In his Twitter message, Sam Perry, a sports writer, an author, and a commentator, wondered how good this Indian Test team would be when Virat Kohli starts to score big runs.
The same question has been on the lips of many Indian fans and commentators.
How does the Indian team get to become this dominant team?
The book No Rules Rules: Netflix and the culture of reinvention gives a great template to manage high-performance organisations.
Reed Hastings quotes in this book that adequate performance in Netflix will get one a generous severance package. He mentions that high-performance organisations do not view themselves as a family, they view themselves as a team.
Unlike a family, in a team, each individual needs to pull their weight. When they don’t, they need to be respectfully replaced with a newcomer.
This does not mean a chop-and-change culture. Everyone is given sufficient time and space to perform or perish.
Just like Netflix, the Indian cricket team is another example of a high-performance unit. The Indian team needs to be managed based on rules like the one espoused in the book.
(Photo by William West/AFP via Getty Images)
In recent cricketing examples, we did see the Australian selectors adopt such a high-performance team management philosophy without giving too much space for other sentiments.
Steve Waugh, Damien Martyn, Mark Waugh, Ian Healy, and various other brilliant cricketers were not allowed to linger in the team when they started to pull in only adequate performances or when superior replacements were readily available on the bench.
When it comes to the Indian cricket team management, we have historically seen popular sentiments being given too much consideration, specifically when it comes to the position of star players.
In the past, we have seen various greats, like Sachin Tendulkar or Kapil Dev, being given extended time in the playing XI despite them turning in only adequate performances.
The selectors retained the stalwart-filled batting unit of the team whitewashed in 2011 by England for the subsequent tour to Australia. No surprise that this team was wiped 4-0 by the Aussies as well.
The latest example of this reluctance to take the right and timely decision is the persistence with players such as Cheteshwar Pujara and Ajinkya Rahane.
Ajinkya has been out of form in this English series, and his statistics over the past two years don’t help his case at all.
Pujara’s case is not as clear cut as Ajinkya’s, but I would still argue that he is turning in below-adequate performances for the team.
I could say that Pujara has scored 91 and 60 in the second innings of the Headingley and the Oval Tests. However, these scores hide that he has managed to make only a modest score in conditions that were suitable for batting.
If Pujara is a top-order batsman and Test specialist, his role is to fight off tough batting conditions and make hay when the conditions ease.
(Photo by Saeed KHAN / AFP via Getty Images)
However, Pujara had repeatedly failed in the first innings of the matches when the ball swung around and turned in just adequate scores in flat batting conditions.
I can argue that an ostensibly flat-pitch bully cannot fare any poorer than Pujara did in tough conditions but will score faster and bigger when the conditions are flat.
So what additional value is Pujara as a Test specialist bringing to the team?
If I follow the Twitter messages from journalists close to the team, I can see that the team management planned to ‘rest’ Ajinkya for the Manchester Test, which has reportedly been cancelled due to COVID-19.
If they did ‘rest’ him, I would be concerned that they are still resorting to euphemisms than calling a spade a spade.
In the press conference, the batting coach, Vikram Rathour, said that he is not concerned by Ajinkya’s lack of form. That shows the continued existence of entitled stardom within the team.
This is not what high-performance team managers say. This is not the kind of message that batters waiting on the bench for their chance should hear.
Mayank Agarwal or Surya Kumar Yadav, even if one would’ve replaced Rahane in the Manchester Test, should not think that his place in the team is only a temporary one until the team brings back Rahane for the next series.
Nobody’s place in the Indian team should be taken for granted, like in a family, for this is not an Indian family, but an Indian team.
In this age where data is available in various slices, the selectors must adopt a true high-performance management philosophy and leave no room for sentimental or star-based decisions.
CricDude
Guest
Couple of failures in NZ and SA and people will question his batting against swinging conditions. Yes he has been superb till now opening in tests. Batting at 3 will only ease him, not put extra pressure.
CSKERD
Roar Rookie
Well by that logic, Virat kholi wouldn't even be captain and Rahane or Rohit should have led the team, right??? What has Kholi done ?? He had the resources, he used them... It's not like he batted like Joe Root throughout the series,,or in any recent series I remember...
Arj
Roar Rookie
You can't be serious, moving Rohit from the middle order to opener has been such a revelation for his test career. He finally looks at ease, especially away from home. He relishes the challenge of facing the new ball, and does it better than any other Indian batsman currently. I doesn't matter that he started his career in the middle he's found his best spot now.
Sgt Pepperoni
Roar Rookie
What about the physios? Irreplaceable
CricDude
Guest
One of the reasons why I would want Rohit Sharma to bat in the middle order in tests. In domestic first class, since he started his career, he was a middle order batter. Also, it will give take off some pressure on Rohit to face the new ball. Sachin opened in ODIs but was a middle order batter in tests. Rohit should play at 3 and Vihari at 5. Vihari is a class act, time to give him 10-15 matches to showcase what he is. That would give a solid middle order in Rohit, Virat and Vihari. Manish Pandey and Shreyas Iyer can be reserves for no. 6 if the team wants to go with 4 bowlers. Rahul and Mayank have played together since they were kids. Even in IPL their partnership has been amazing. Should give them few matches to see what they can do as opening pair in tests. If any of them fail, Prithvi, Devdutt can come as backup. Also time to bring in Sheldon Jackson into the squad as backup wicket-keeper. As long as he is fit to play, there is nothing wrong in being in squad. Citing age as a reason for exclusion would be unfair. The selectors and team management should take some bold decisions and create a solid batting lineup. Like Warney said recently when asked if this is the best Indian team, 'it is the bowling attack that is winning games for India now and the batting lineup is still not in the league of Viru, Dravid, Sach, VVS and Ganguly'.
Sedz
Guest
I agree with u. I always felt that India started playing well away but getting lenient at home. If there is a team that can win at India it's always going to be Australia. Not New Zealand because they don't have the extra pace to discomfort our batsman. Australia may do what we did to them but it's never an easy job.
whymuds
Roar Rookie
Well written, Tsat. The issue of persisting with legends / excellent players past their prime isn't unique to the Indian cricket team, there are examples of it across all sports. One of my favourite athletes of all time is Tim Duncan. His stats were well down the last few years of his career. But he was also regarded as one of the sharpest basketball thinkers and finest on-court leaders in modern NBA. So he added value in other ways. Then there are examples that surprise you, like Brady to the Buccaneers. I'm still on the fence about Che. He brings such a different style to the lineup and he's put in some performances lately that have helped us either win or draw games from dire positions. Jinx, on the other hand, looks cooked. It's not that he's just had a lean run, but he's looked completely out of sorts at the crease in India and England against all types of bowlers. In saying all this, a lot of fans were calling for his head years ago. If they got their wish, we don't win at the MCG, thanks to his runs, and probably get different results at the SCG and Gabba, for his leadership. I mentioned in another comment that the next few years will be interesting for India as we transition in some new players. It can sometimes take a long time to mature into a good test player (see R Sharma and I Sharma) and I hope India gets the timing right. But I see us at serious risk of losing the next home series against Australia. They generally tend to play well in India and if they catch us at a time when we have 3 or 4 new young players, it could be very interesting.
Arj
Roar Rookie
India A are playing 3 tests against South Africa before the main series, which could be pivotal for youngsters to stake their claim. Also the Ranji Trophy is set to come back in January. Surely there will be some changes to the Indian middle order coming up.
Arj
Roar Rookie
Yadav is a very classy batter but I think India should let him find his feet in the white ball set ups first. I feel like his selection in the squad was based on his form in the shorter formats, but he has only played a handful of matches. Yadav and Iyer both play for Mumbai, with Iyer having a slightly better record. I wouldn’t mind either, but I have a slight personal preference to Iyer. Shaw is an interesting case. I think he will get a test opportunity again but he has a lot of work to do dealing with the moving ball. India had Easwaran in their test squad against England, before Shaw. I don’t know a lot about him but he’s been part of the India A set up for a while, so he might be next in line.
Paul
Roar Guru
No love for Surya Kumar Yadav, Arj? I know virtually nothing about him, but he certainly seems to have some good wraps. Anyone who can make the Indian touring squad has to be pretty exceptional. What about Prithvi Shaw? Dies he slot in when Rohit gives it away which I assume happens in a year or two?
Arj
Roar Rookie
Great piece. The home series against New Zealand should be a great opportunity to blood some more talent. The players have the comfort of playing at home yet still against top opposition. Another important series to test this India side's greatness is the tour of South Africa. I would say they are favourites but the batting certainly needs to improve - A fired Rabada, Ngidi, Nortje etc will be tough to face. If it was up to me I would think about a batting line-up maybe of Rohit, Agarwal, Gill, Kohli, Rahul. Gill deserves to come back into the set up and at 3 could be a good spot for him. I trust Rahul moving down with the addition of Agarwal at the top more so than Vihari or SKY coming in. I also think someone like a Shreyas Iyer should come into the squad. India has the tools to succeed, they just need to show the ruthlessness in batting selection; they've already done so with their bowling choices.
La grandeur d'Athéna
Roar Rookie
I could not agree more. I do not understand how people make such bold comparisons of west indies or Australia. Our team is doing well, but they need to be a few order of magnitude better than this. Those West indian and Australia teams dominated world cricket due to solid depth in their cricket. We are three teams short of their depth. Instead of talking about how good we would be if virat scoring runs, we need to start talking about how good we would be if we have one more virat like young player in our team. Hallmark of a great team is they always have players for transition from one era to another. It does not have to be the greatest team of history, but still can be a great team. We can see that from teams like Australia. From Steve Waugh to Ricky Ponting, to Michael Clarke to Steve Smith and now finally to Marnus Labushane. Virat is mid thirty.We need to start asking the question, who is after virat.
Paul
Roar Guru
Excellent piece, Tsat. I particularly like the quote, "Unlike a family, in a team, each individual needs to pull their weight. When they don’t, they need to be respectfully replaced with a newcomer." There are some exceptions to this approach. The captain for example, seems to get more leeway, as was the case with MS Dhoni and Ricky Ponting towards the end of their Test careers. Outstanding batsmen like Virat, also seem to get more chances to come good, which is fair enough to a point. The trick is getting the player to realise their time in the Test team is limited and maybe they should retire or move down a grade, sort out what ails them and come back a better player. The other factor worth noting is the pressure put on other player to not only do their job, but to exceed expectations, because other members of the team are not doing theirs. The mental pressure on a bowler to make runs because the top order has failed, is very different than a bowler coming out and having a swing because his team's got 450 on the board. Doing that once or twice in a career is neither here nor there. Doing that, or being expected to do that, game after game, starts to wear players down, mentally and physically.