GANGULY, JAGGU AND THE POLITICS OF INDIAN CRICKET
November 27, 2004
After 35 years, Australia finally won an historic series in India. But, lets be realistic, it was bound to happen some time. Since their shocking lost in 2001, the Australians dedicated themselves, with a singleness of purpose, to make things right on their return to India in 2004. Kudos to them on a job planned and executed to near perfection. Yet, why does one get this nagging feeling that things could have turned out, somewhat, differently had India not been burdened by the politics, and petty infighting that seem to be an inseparable part of the Jaggu and Saurav era?
Only a few months ago, this Indian team was hailed as one of the finest and most competitive in the world, and with good reason. On the heels of their dream run in the 2003 World Cup, India toured Australia and retained the Border – Gavaskar Trophy. It was, arguably, the first time since the mid 90s that any team had seriously challenged the invincible Aussies on their home turf. Next up – that tour to Pakistan, and India’s first taste of victory there, winning both the test and One Day series. Suddenly, the Indians were the talk of the town. Here was a team with the most talented and fearsome middle order in the world, they said. Throw in those two match winners, Kumble and Harbhajan Singh, together with the seamers – Pathan, Nehra, Khan and Balaji – India’s finest in many a years, and the sky was the limit. So, where did it all go so terribly wrong? In a word – Saurav Ganguly.
Ganguly, at best, is a controversial figure – not the quality one looks for in a leader. Critics argue that the skipper is bedeviled with serious insecurities, and an over-inflated ego. Ganguly, they say, believes that the Indian team is his personal fiefdom, courtesy of one, Dada Jaggu. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, said Lord Acton over 100 years ago. Ganguly uses such powers to meddle in team selection – something for which he is so ill-equipped. He single-handedly shattered Akash Chopra’s confidence by publicly insisting that Yuvraj Singh open the innings. In Australia, and in Pakistan, it was solid starts from openers Chopra and Shewag that laid the foundation for India’s eventual success. Poor Chopra must be wondering exactly what is it that he did wrong. Well, the truth is that he did everything right. Earlier this summer, I asked Greg Chappell about the reasons for India’s recent success. Chappell quickly pointed to the solid opening partnerships of Shewag and Chopra, something not seen since the days of Sunny Gavaskar.
Parthiv Patel cannot catch a cold in winter, or, as we say in the West Indies, he couldn’t even stump his toe. Yet it was on Ganguly’s insistence that he was retained for the critical third test against Australia even though the selectors unanimously agreed that he had to go. Two dropped catches and a missed stumping later and the series was decided in Australia’s favour.
Selection meddling aside, critics question Ganguly’s place in the team arguing that fast bowlers have sorted out his weakness. In the second innings of the first test, he had no stomach for the fight. When he came to the crease, Gillespie peppered him with a few short pitched deliveries. The following over he called Dravid for a suicide single, and ran himself out trying to escape the line of fire. India’s Tapan Joshi later wrote that the skipper showed no courage for the fight. In the series – deciding third test, Ganguly tried unsuccessfully to get the grounds-man to prepare a spinner friendly wicket at Nagpur. Failing to get his wish, he declared himself unfit to play hours before the start, something that many view as a decision to escape the line of Aussie fire. Interestingly enough, two days later, Ganguly declared himself fit to play in India’s domestic competition, and, currently, against a depleted South African attack.
A critical component of Australia’s success is the absence of internal strife or political infighting. The peace of mind that comes from such organizational stability is critical to the Australians’ mental game – something that Curtly Ambrose alluded to when I spoke with him last week. On the other hand, critics see Indian cricket as a roller coaster ride of confusion, contradiction, and political manipulation as head honcho, Jagmohan Dalmiya, asserts his power and control over the game.
In the interest of Indian cricket, there ought to be greater transparency and accountability in selection matters, and Ganguly should be replaced as captain. But, in a country where wealth and social status count for more than common sense, don’t expect that to happen anytime soon.
On Drive Homepage
© shamsamaroo