From: pvr@rice.edu (Narasimha Pvr)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Who should be India's vice captain? (Re: Reflections on the ...)
Date: 6 Apr 1992 23:30:17 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <5APR199221024943@rigel.tamu.edu>, g0m0078@rigel.tamu.edu (giri) writes:

> In article <1992Apr5.071731.7780@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>, sidi@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Sadiq Yusuf) writes...

Before proceeding to the main topic, some peripheral issues:

> After so many years we are yet to produce a javed who will
> stand at one end and see it thro'.

The way Tendulkar batted in this season gives an indication that he will play
a similar role in future.

Let us look at the way he batted during the world cup. In the match with
Pakistan (which was very important for both the teams), he played it cool
without any heroics. Until the very end, he didn't do any big hitting. He kept
rotating the strike very well. When Kapil was hitting big, SRT just turned in
the strike to Kapil on every ball he faced (which paid off as Kapil 35 off
less balls). In the 32-over match with Zimbabwe, he went for calculated
aggression (which was needed in the situation with India having a lot of
wickets) and got out only with 2 overs left. Against NZ, he let Azhar go for
his shots and kept the other end tight during the partnership. After Azhar got
out (trying a second sixer), he tried to play coolly (there were around 10
overs), but failed to do that after a couple of overs. With 8 overs to go and
15 runs for maiden century, he should've played it safe (like he did till
then) and let the other guy settle and play big. But he went for shots, got
out, India collapsed and even with a good slogging from Kapil, India failed to
capitalize on the good partnership between Azhar and SRT. So, SRT didn't play
the role perfectly, but he was ok. With some more experience (and at the rate
at which he is learning and maturing all the time) he will be playing that
role well enough in future.

> I am a huge fan of the harayana hurricane and even then I feel that
> Azhar should be persisted with. Many of our ills have been attributed
> to the fact that we change every time one captain fails.

We should not generalize like that. True, it is bad to change captain every
time we fail. But it is bad as well to keep a very bad captain (I am not
saying that's the case with Azhar) just because we decided not to drop a
captain despite loss. It is like going to other extreme realizing that we were
at one extreme in the past. It just doesn't compensate.

It is good to keep a captain for a long time. But that choice should be made
with caution. With a bad choice, however long we persist with him, we will not
solve our problems.

So the question is how good Azhar is and how good the other options (Kapil,
Shastri) are. We should bother about that. We should not be prejudiced
against dropping someone, just because we made the mistake of dropping someone
earlier. It was a bad decision then. But, may be that's the best decision now.
We made mistakes earlier. Now let us think seriously and decide whom we should
persist with in the years to come and make him the cap. I know it's tough. But
the job of selectors is tough, then.

> Kapil will probably play the next WC and he should not be
> burdened with this role just because he is a great motivator.
> But he was not a GREAT captain.

It is not just because he is a great motivator that he is being considered as
a candidate. He was not a "GREAT" captain. But, then, there are no GREAT
captains around (in the Indian team) now. He is perhaps better than Azhar.
That's what counts. Moreover, I think Kapil of 1992 is more matured than Kapil
of 1987 was.

However, as a fan of Kapil, I am seriously concerned with what efects it will
have on Kapil's performance. I do want him to get as many wickets as possible.
That's much more important to me than whether he leads India or not.

Now onto the main topic:

> >    End of Part 1 of my analysis of Part 1 . Part 2 of Part 1 to follow :-)
> > 
> >		Sadiq [ call 1-800-ANALYSIS for further details ] Yusuf
> 
> 
> No one has talked about the vice-captain. I feel Shastri, More will fill
> the slots for the tests and ODI respectively.

> giri

Somehow fans are not as bothered about VC as they are about cap. Even BCCI
seems to be the same way. They just fill in the spot without much thinking
often. Let me give my opinions on who should be the VC.

First, let me make one thing clear. It is preferable to have as VC someone who
is under consideration for future captaincy. It'll help him when he is made
captain later.

SHASTRI:

He was the choice for VC for a long time. Now it is time to figure out if we
need him as VC any further. Are we going to have him as the captain sometime
in future? I don't think he will be needed as the captain in future if he is
not made one today. If Azhar is retained (or Kapil is apponited), he will be
retained for atleast 4-5 years to come. Then we will have SRT (those three
letters stand for a future cricket legend, whose full name is Sachin Ramesh
Tendulkar) and Manjrekar ready. Moreover, by that time, Shastri will be more
or less at the end of his career.

So I don't find any point in having Shastri as the deputy to Azhar/Kapil for
the coming 4 years and making Manjrekar or Tendulkar captain then, since it
will be too late for Shastri. Don't postpone things. Have a long-term strategy
clear in mind. And proceed accordingly.

MANJREKAR and TENDULKAR:

Both have almost same experience despite significant difference in age (SRT is
18 (he will be 19 v.soon) while Manjrekar is 26). The former hasn't captained
Bombay much. So there isn't much difference between both.

Let me argue for Tendulkar. He seems to have a natural cricketing talent. The
way he always performed much above his age and the way he got used to
different conditions makes me think so. I am confident his future performance
will justify me further.

He is supposed to be very active on field (read Ian Chappell's descriptions in
old India Today's). In Azhar's words, "he gives his 100 per cent to the game.
He has now emerged as our main player. And if he keeps his head, he is future
Indian captain." His performance is likely to be much better than that of
others in the coming years [both in ODIs and in tests (and in any other forms
of cricket that may be invented in future to make cricket more exciting to the
masses. Say, five-over matches.)].

The captain appointed for the tour of SA (whether it is Kapil or Azza) will
not be removed for atleast 4-5 years. By then, SRT will have had atleast 6-7
years experience. For a man with his talent, it is definitely more than
enough (if he made his debut at 21 or 22 and was made captain at 28 or 29, not
many would compalin. But somehow, it looks odd to make someone captain at 23.
I see nothing wrong. Especially in the current drought of captaining talent,
SRT is a ray of hope). He would be much more matured by then (look at his
present rate of improving! As Sunny said, "there are no masters in this game,
only students. And Sachin is a rare cricketer who is learning all the time. He
is growing at a phenominal rate and the sky is the limit."). So he can take
charge then with 7 years of experience in international cricket.

Manjrekar is another candidate, but we have to make a choice now. Whomever we
want to make the captain after Azhar/Kapil should be made VC now. There is no
point in making Manjrekar VC now because he is much older than SRT and making
SRT captain after Azhar/Kapil. If we prefer SRT to Manjrekar, we should act
appropriately now. We should nurture SRT for the coming 4 years under the
present captain.

MORE:

Making him VC just serves a temporary goal. But, in the long term, it's
poninless. We are not anyway going to make him skipper. Same holds for
Prabhakar.


Also, if we make Kapil captain now, one possiblity (in theory atleast) for VC
is Azhar himself. But it sucks. If we are sacking Azhar now, we are not likely
to recall him later. So, again, it doesn't serve any purpose.

So far, Indian selectors haven't paid enough attention (which it deserves,
IMHO) to the issue of VC selection. They made someone VC arbitrarily which led
them to making someone who didn't even serve as VC for a significant time
being made skipper without much experience. I wish they paid more attenntion
to this issue also. It will solve the captaincy problem to some extent.

So, to conclude, I would suggest the name of SRT for VC. Any takers! :-)

You may suggest appointing SRT as VC after a couple of years. But that again
doesn't serve any purpose. If we have Azhar for the coming 4-6 years, it is
advisable to have SRT as VC for the whole period rather than having Shastri or
More or Manjrekar for the first 2 years and SRT for the rest and apponiting
SRT as the next captain. We should act strongly with clear long-term goals.

--------
PVR Narasimha [We Love SRT And It Shows :-)] Rao
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket