 Team India
 The noise about Sourav Ganguly’s exclusion from the Indian team for the Ahmedabad Test is yet to die down. The new BCCI president, Sharad Pawar, has shown great statesmanship by inviting Ganguly for a chat that must have soothed the former captain’s injured feelings. He has also gone on record saying that he was hurt and shocked by Ganguly’s omission.
Kolkatans have gone on the rampage demanding Ganguly’s reinstatement in the Indian squad. It is not the man on the street we are talking about. Even the Chief Minister of the West Bengal has jumped into the bandwagon of Ganguly supporters and selection committee bashers. Violence has erupted all over the state.
Former Test cricketers have come out in strong criticism of the way Ganguly has been treated by the selectors. Most of them wanted his head just a month earlier. This is no way to treat a former captain, according to most of them. Much is made of the 40 and 39 he made in the Delhi Test. I know Ganguly made a valiant effort to stay at the wicket in both innings, but I can’t help asking when he last did that in a Test match, before being dropped and brought back in? Was he fighting for a place in the side or fighting for India?
Some critics have gone to the extent of claiming that an Indian icon has been insulted. How do you define an icon? Somebody who scores runs or takes wickets? Someone who happens to lead India in victorious Tests abroad? Does all that make him a successful cricketer and captain or an icon?
Yes, Ganguly’s omission could have been handled with greater finesse. Perhaps, Mohammad Kaif could have stayed out one more time, and Ganguly allowed to perform or perish in the final Test. That way, Kaif’s position in the team would have been more secure, without the stigma of failure now attached to him. But the selectors really erred in bringing Ganguly back into the Test squad, and it suspiciously looks like they did it to appease the Kolkata public before the ODI against Sri Lanka at Eden Gardens. There was still one-day cricket left in Ganguly and if at all he must be included, it should have been in the ODI version of the game. Even there, it is difficult to fit him in when he is not captain; where would he field when not leading the side?
Yes, it must be hurting to be dropped, though I find it difficult to believe that it is somehow more hurting for a former captain. Even Sandip Patil, who criticised the selectors for dropping Ganguly, says that he felt equally hurt when he was summarily dismissed from the Test arena. After all these years, he remembers the hurt! I think someone should ask Anil Kumble how he felt when he was dropped in the World Cup. Or V V S Laxman who has never figured in the World Cup. How about those who are good enough - at least they think so, and have runs and wickets under their belts to prove it - and never get picked for India?
I think the matter should be discussed, if it must, on the basis of team balance, form and the future in the near and long terms. There is no value in adding an emotional dimension to the issue. In the case of Ganguly the whole problem has been created and exacerbated by him and his supporters in the board. Greg Chappell, with all his sledgehammer ways, even if crude and tactless sometimes, has done more good for Indian cricket than anyone else in its long history. He has made it clear that everyone with a questionable attitude, has to shape up or ship out. He has transformed a slightly loose bunch of talented individuals into a unified, purposeful force. Let’s not muddle the issue by putting the clock back. Let’s back Team India.
V Ramnarayan
|
