Should heads roll? Ball is in BCCI court

THE whitewash by New Zealand in a Test series in India has triggered Indian cricket’s greatest crisis. This calls for a befitting response.

Let us first put the result of the just-concluded India-New Zealand Test in context. The Kiwis, now nicknamed Black Caps, were, for decades, minnows among Test-playing sides. When they first visited India in the winter of 1955-56, the hosts won 2-0, marking India’s first-ever series victory — 23 years after their Test debut.

India’s maiden series win abroad was also against New Zealand in the form of Tiger Pataudi’s team triumphing 3-1 in 1967-68. The Black Caps didn’t win a series against India until 1981, which was largely because of a singular fast bowling feat at the Basin Reserve in Wellington by Richard Hadlee.

New Zealand did indeed beat India in the inaugural World Test Championship (WTC) final in 2021. But the trend of the former never winning a series in India persisted, until the outcome on Sunday. The impregnable bastion that India had become at home, with the might of Australia, England and South Africa tumbling repeatedly had crumbled like sandcastle! That, too, at the hands of a squad without their two best players — batsman Kane Williamson and left-arm fast bowler Trent Boult.

Given the fact that Sri Lanka had thrashed New Zealand on subcontinental soil just prior to the Black Caps taking on India, there was not unjustified expectation that the home side would produce a brown-wash, thereby rendering the upcoming five Tests in Australia inconsequential in terms of India qualifying for a third consecutive WTC final.

Horror of horrors! Indian batsmen could not cope with the tourists’ spin trio. Earlier generations of Indian wielders of the willow could play slow bowling with their eyes closed — even on rank turners. So, what is it that has happened since India humbled England 4-1 eight months ago?

In the delirium that the BCCI has existed in lately, obsessed with phenomena like the Twenty20 Indian Premier League, certain fundamentals have been forgotten. That it’s not the BCCI’s bank balance but India’s display on the field which matters most. That while lifting the Twenty20 World Cup this year wasn’t insignificant, wearing the WTC crown is the ultimate prize in a game conceived as an even contest between bat and ball.

The BCCI boasts that its net worth is greater than the combined wealth of the rest of the cricket boards. But it is the Aussies with far less funds who hold the WTC and World Cup trophies.

The BCCI constitution empowers its president considerably. On major matters, he is looked upon as being the face of the organisation, its spokesman. Yet, the present president, Roger Binny, a former international cricketer, the bowler of the tournament in India’s dizzying 1983 World Cup, has been missing in action.

Whether he has been a mover and shaker behind the scene, one doesn’t know. But it astonished many that he was present at the T20 WC final at Barbados in June; but absent at the post-match presentation ceremony. The BCCI secretary, and not Binny, represents the BCCI on the International Cricket Council board — unprecedented in the catalogue of Indian cricket. Was there a backroom deal between the genial and gentlemanly Binny and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which seemingly remote-controls the BCCI?

Binny and the BCCI secretary cannot be absolved of being party to a policy failure. Binny is guilty of apparently abdicating a proactive role as president. His secretary has underlined that enthusiasm is not a substitute for expertise.

Jay Shah, son of the Union Home Minister, with no cricketing background, calling the shots manifested in the shape of Gautam Gambhir, a BJP Lok Sabha MP, being appointed as India’s head coach with a degree of haste. From the heights of Rahul Dravid, a globally recognised authority on batsmanship, the critical responsibility was transferred to a man with a limited track record in Tests.

There is, besides, a backdrop of bad blood between Gambhir and Virat Kohli. Admittedly, Gambhir contributed materially to India’s successful campaigns in the 2007 World Twenty20 and the 2011 World Cup. But there can be no comparison between the prowess of the two as batsmen, for Kohli is an all-time great in every format.

Dressing room unity cannot be underestimated as a component of favourable outcome. The respect for Dravid was universal and his behaviour generated a bonding. One shouldn’t accuse Gambhir of dividing the dressing room. Yet, his utterances during his stint in politics suggest a divisive character.

When India lost 3-0 in England in 1974, Ajit Wadekar resigned as skipper immediately. After India were eliminated at the preliminary stage in the 2007 World Cup, Dravid never skippered India again in limited overs cricket.

So, should Rohit Sharma, hitherto a brilliant batsman and helmsman, quit after one of India’s supreme ignominies? His reckless batting, moreover, set a terrible example as leader. The jury is certainly out on his future.

Greg Chappell was sacked as head coach after India prematurely exited the 2007 World Cup. Should the axe likewise fall on Gambhir? Here, too, jurors are in a huddle. Sharma and Gambhir staying in post, though, appears to be a fait accompli for the tour of Australia.

Sachin Tendulkar wondered aloud if it was ‘lack of preparation’, ‘poor shot selection’ or ‘lack of match practice’ that caused India’s abysmal showing. The first and third issues don’t stack up since India had just engaged in a series with a competitive Bangladeshi side.

But poor shot selection was undoubtedly in evidence. The T20 glamour has so enamoured modern batsmen that the prerequisite of defence on a difficult pitch has abandoned them. They are unendowed with the ability or confidence to simply block, to play with soft hands.

Can India make amends in Australia? They did recover after being bundled out for 36 at Adelaide last time around. It should be the last chance granted to Gambhir, Sharma and Kohli to redeem themselves.