Dhoni’s Position in the Batting Order

During the IPL and today in the warmup match against New Zealand, we saw M S Dhoni promote himself up the order to No. 3. His record has been inconsistent. Sometimes it has worked and at other times, like today, it hasn’t. This has happened quite a few times that I get a feeling that Dhoni is being too clever instead of thinking strategically and long-term.

To be a great captain, you have to produce good results consistently. One way to do this is to work hard with the team to help them understand their roles better, improve their skills, analyze the team’s and individual playing styles and try to make gains in every aspect of the game. This will bring in results that keep getting incrementally better. It is not glamorous and it requires a lot of patience.

The other route is to try different tactics. In cricket, that means experimenting with different batting orders, bowlers, fielding tactics and so on. When you are the underdog, this can work out spectacularly like Martin Crowe in the 1992 World Cup or the Sri Lankans in the 1996 World Cup. The trick here is that you understand your weaknesses and your strengths well and exploit them in such a way that teams playing the conventional way cannot defeat you. Man-for-man, every team could be better than you, but as a team, you have found a way to maximize your strength that the other teams could not.

There is nothing inherently wrong in Dhoni trying out new batting order tactics. But it is a problem when you take a team like India that has a huge advantage in conventional ways of playing. It has capable batsmen and bowlers in Twenty20 and should try to get into a rhythm where each person feels comfortable and confident in their role.

If there is a method to the madness, I could understand it. But much of this business seems to be ad-hoc. There does not seem to be a master plan and everything gets shuffled based on the match situation or the performance in the previous match. Instead of placing confidence in a particular player to adapt to the conditions, the theme seems to be that you have to change your players according to the conditions. There is some truth to it, but not all the time, because you want to believe that international players will have some level of adaptability.

I am reminded of what Greg Chappell did to the Indian team when he took over. The Indian team won many games when Irfan Pathan and Dhoni were promoted up the order. But their streak ended and the Indians came back to earth. Too much reliance on individuals to rescue the team is a failing strategy even if it can be a successful tactic at times. The other team members feel absolved of their responsibilities and cannot step up when the need comes.

After todays’ defeat against the Kiwis, I am sure that the Indian Brains Trust will come up with some new shuffles in the next game. Like throwing stuff at a wall and seeing what sticks. It is not a long-term strategy for success. What I am more scared of is if the same mentality will creep into the decision-making for Tests and ODIs.

Brilliant and Disastrous Cricket Captains

leadership

Captains are usually given undue credit or blame for their team’s performance. If the players in the team have less skill and experience than those in the opposing team, the team generally loses more than they wins. There is nothing much you can do to blame the captain if the team is performing, but that is what critics do.

On the other hand, if you have a team full of superstars, the captain only plays a small part in the team’s success. However, fans are quick to praise the captain. This was particularly true for Ricky Ponting who coasted for a long time on extraordinary players like McGrath, Gilchrist, Warne and Hayden.

So when we look at captaincy, we need to look at teams that succeeded in spite of having average players or failed despite having good players. For the most part, we can ignore teams like West Indies and Australia who have always had great players and teams like Bangladesh which has perpetually lost matches. The only exception I can think of is Allan Border who received the captaincy at a time when Australia were not doing so good.

The two players who had a terrible time at captaincy in recent times were Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara. Before receiving the captaincy, Tendulkar was the vice-captain and was very active in helping with on-field decisions. However, his two captaincy stints were disasters, not only for the team, but also for his batting. Since then, he has rejected calls for being the captain again. As for Lara, while he inherited the captaincy during a time of waning fortunes for the West Indies, he was not able to inspire his team to battle it out unlike how Chris Gayle has been able to do.

On the other side of the spectrum, Martin Crowe was one of the captains who managed to make lemons out of lemonade. With a team of arguably harmless batsmen and bowlers, he forged a fighting unit that won every match in the 1992 World Cup until they came against an inspired Pakistani team. He introduced new innovative tactics (slogging at the start of the innings) that took opponents by surprise and still defines ODI cricket today.

Nasser Hussain took an insipid England team and made them into a tough band, which, under Vaughan, would go on to win series after series. Sourav Ganguly did the same for India leading to the greatest cricketing Test rivalry during this decade: the India-Australia series. Under him, teams realized that gamesmanship against India was a double-edged sword.  The jelly beans incident was Ganguly’s legacy.

So, let us finally come to Mahendra Singh Dhoni. Is he a great captain? It is still early days, but there is more and more evidence that points to that. He won the T20 World Cup, lead India to victory against Australia, England and New Zealand, and almost won the first IPL. The interesting thing is that we can compare his record with the other Indian captains leading the team at the same time.

Anil Kumble lead India against South Africa and lost the 2nd Test. Dhoni was the captain for the 3rd Test and India won. Against Australia, Kumble lead India for the 1st and 3rd Tests, which ended in draws. Dhoni was the skipper for the 2nd and 4th Tests, which India won. Sehwag lead India in the 2nd Test against the Kiwis and India struggled to draw the match. India easily won the first Test and almost won the 3rd Test against New Zealand, when Dhoni lead the team.

Dhoni, unlike Martin Crowe, has not introduced any new strategies or tactics. But I think he has had a positive effect on the team through his management style. One of the interesting features of this Indian team is that Dhoni is not the most experienced team member. Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, etc. have more experience than him. So he has to lead the team through consensus rather than enforcement. And therefore, it probably creates less pressure for the team members.

In the long run, we will see how India fares and how history rates Dhoni. In the last two decades, India has had many captains. Azharuddin made India an irresistible force at home, but he is more remembered today for his betting scandals. Tendulkar squandered India’s advantage. Ganguly helped India win abroad. Who remembers Dravid’s captaincy now even though he won a series in England? And Kumble’s stop-gap captaincy will be a footnote to his legendary exploits as India’s best ever spinner.

[Photo licensed from lumaxart]

The Potpourri of Cricket Matches

crowded-cricket-field

Among games that command international popularity, cricket should probably be the only one that has an assortment of different kinds of matches. We have Test matches that run for five days and do not sometimes even produce a result. That itself is unique among all sports. Then we have ODI’s (one day internationals) that last an entire day. Now, we also have Twenty20 matches that get over in an evening. 

This would be okay if the rules were the same for each of them. But that is not the case. Test cricket is still played in white clothing and red balls and has to be abandoned if there is bad light. ODI’s have free hits, Powerplays and Duckworth-Lewis. T20 matches have tie deciders with super overs. 

Nowadays, we have specialists in each type of match. There are some players who only play in the Test team and others only in ODI’s or T20′s, and they are unable to transfer their batting or bowling skills to the other match. Michael Bevan is a good example of that. Nowadays, players like Jayasuriya retire from one form of the sport or are sidelined by their Board to preserve their capability in the other forms. We also have different captains in each form. So far, this has not created a big issue because the captain in one of the formats does not find his place in the other format.

Bi-lateral series are increasingly having all three types of matches. ODI’s are still more common than Tests and T20′s simply because they offer more commercialization opportunities (i.e., make more money). In the long-term, they are likely to decrease as audiences for 50-over-apiece matches decline because of lower entertainment value and higher time requirements. Unless, of course, cricket boards find a way to monetize information flow to mobile phones and computers.

This decade of cricket has been the most innovative yet, beating any other sport in trying out new ideas and technologies. And it is not over yet. With the influx of large sums of money, the game is likely to change significantly as cricket spreads across the globe. 

[Photo licensed from sowri]

Kevin Pietersen – Captaincy Cameo

Just when I felt England has found the right captaincy in Kevin Pietersen, someone possessing the stature and caliber of Ricky Ponting, Graeme Smith, M S Dhoni (Fast and Furious) to lead from the front, and thus provide a healthy balance among cricketing nations, guess what? KP’s relationship with the coach Moores derailed. Moores was fired and KP was “forced to resign“, as he called it.  Though he should be back playing I wonder how his performance would be affected by these drastic events.

It is physically and mentally challenging enough for any cricketer like Pietersen to work hard from the bottom to the top, proving himself game after game and achieving the proud feat of leading the side. If on top of that, all of a sudden, he is dropped, it could dramatically alter his career performance.  The analogy sounds similar to surviving a executive role in any corporate culture.

All I can wish is that others learn lessons from such incidents and resolve issues with team players, coaches, senior players in team, and the cricket management before it bubbles up. Hope KP will continue to prove a solid player for England. He still has time to lead the side in the future. Watch out for IPL shenanigans, because guess who is a free agent!