Indian cricket reduced to a joke, but no one's laughing

Indian cricket reduced to a joke, but no one's laughing
VEDAM JAISHANKAR

BANGALORE, FEB 22: The goings-on in Indian cricket reads like a soap opera. With each day unfolds another episode of this never-ending drama where the principal characters have contrived to reduce the game and Indian cricket into a joke. Only problem is, no lover of Indian cricket is laughing.

Whether it is thumbs up or thumbs down to Mohammed Azharuddin, or Sachin Tendulkar's repeated withdrawal symptoms, or the recall of the never-was Test player Ajay Jadeja or the now-he's-invited, now-he-ain't Kapil Dev, the Indian Board has only stumbled from one farce to another.

Surely, the time is far gone to set things right. For example, how on earth does a cricket board put up with a player who picks and drops captaincy at his whims and fancy³? Is he greater than the game itself, or is this a well thought out strategy³?

To be fair, Tendulkar may really be tired of captaincy and keen on ``enjoying his batting''. In that case, he ought to have spelt it out shortly after returning to India (accepting that he needs some time to consult friends, family and advisors). Instead, this eleventh hour resignation is too much of a fait accompli.

Besides, it throws up a lot more questions. For instance, what happens if India win the Test series³? Would ``well-wishers' force him to stay on as captain³? Alternately, if India lose, is this advance quitting some sort of escape clause³? Also, would he have quit if he was guaranteed Azharuddin would not be in the squad³?

If the Tendulkar episode leaves a bad taste in the mouth, Kapil Dev's invitation saga is a case of the board cutting its nose to spite the face.

It is too much even for this board to forget it paid a hefty fee to the coach. His job is not only to coach the team, but provide invaluable feedback to the selectors. Being the board's man on the spot in Australia, it is his in-puts that should have moulded the composition of the team for the home series.

Instead, it now looks like the board might be willing to pay him, but has no confidence in either his feedback or his in-puts. In that case, why retain him³? If the board has no faith in his views, it ought to sack him. At least that is what any logical mind would do.

The luckiest cricketer surely is Azharuddin. His stock in India went up with every delivery he did not have to play in Australia. Nobody bothered to ask if the Aussies, with their precision planning, would have pitched up even a single ball to him. Instead, Chandu Borde and his selectors were happy to go with the tide and choose him, however illogical his inclusion at the age of 37 might be.

Azharuddin's thumb, however, put paid to the selectors' plans, temporarily at least. Still, one wonders what sort of a reception he would have received in Tendulkar's home town, especially after the latter's decision to quit.

In Azharuddin's absence, the second most lucky cricketer, Jadeja, gets a look in. Those who thought his career as a Test batsman was finished after the New Zealand tour, now have some rethinking to do. Who knows, the next time, he might even resurface as captain³!