da 888： The selectors must be pretty sanguine that the forthcoming Zimbabwe series will not tax the Indian players’technique or temperament unduly
da bet vitoria： V Ramnarayan22-Feb-2002Sourav Ganguly is a puzzled man. He does not know why India losesthe crucial matches. By his own generous admission, he would havewon more such matches for India if he knew the problem. Oursatellite channels faithfully telecast the Indian captain’swonderfully humble attempt at self-analysis, as if to acquit himof all charges of repeated failures as captain and player.The selectors must be pretty sanguine that theforthcoming Zimbabwe series will not tax the Indian players’technique or temperament unduly. One neat series win later, allwill be forgotten and forgiven in the euphoria of victory, theyseem to be reassuring themselves, to offer the least offensiveexplanation of their penchant for the status quo.To be fair to him, though, the Prince of Calcutta was a littlemore forthcoming than that. He wondered aloud if inexperience wasthe root cause of India’s continued inability to win matches,even against Nasser Hussain’s scratch combination – though theywere made to look like world beaters in India – under homeconditions, with the help of incompetent umpires whose mistakescame in handy when the hosts were down. He was a trifledisappointed – and he said this with the appropriate expressionof condescending indulgence towards the newcomers in the Indianeleven – that, after he had brought the side to the threshold ofvictory in the final one-dayer, the rest of the batting simplyfolded.There was, thus, no hint of regret that he had thrown his wicketaway playing a loose, even arrogant lap-shot instead of stayingat the wicket until victory was achieved. How smug and selfsatisfied he looked, absolving himself of all guilt while puttinghis younger teammates on the mat! The selectors too seem equallysmug.Ganguly had not done badly, actually, according to chairman ofselectors Chandu Borde. After all, he had won the Test series anddrawn the one-day rubber against England. The captain’s almosttotal capitulation as a batsman, especially in Test matchcricket, does not seem to have worried him unduly.The selectors must be pretty sanguine that the forthcomingZimbabwe series will not tax the Indian players’ technique ortemperament unduly. One neat series win later, all will beforgotten and forgiven in the euphoria of victory, they seem tobe reassuring themselves, to offer the least offensiveexplanation of their penchant for the status quo.Not too long ago, there was some much-publicised rhetoric by theBCCI president declaring that those in charge of Indian cricketwould be held accountable for the results they produced. Inhindsight, it seems to have been no more than an attempt to getrid of John Wright and Andrew Leipus, the unwanted ‘foreigners.’The captain, in contrast, seems to be immune from any suchrequirement. After all, was it not suggested by many, just priorto his sensational return to Test cricket in 1996, that Gangulywas Jagmohan Dalmiya’s boy?But Indian cricket has a way of making fools of everyone. For allwe know, an Andy-Flower-inspired Zimbabwe could still spring asurprise or two, and by the end of the series, the selectorscould face pretty much the same situation as they face today. Andonce again, they will decide to let sleeping dogs lie and play itsafe with the selection of the captain and the team for the WestIndies tour.
