Fame is a fickle food

After the rain-curtailed one dayer at Bangalore, MS Dhoni said, "Discretion is better part of valour," in an apparent retort to Adam Gilchrist’s charge that Indian team shied away from taking the filed.

“If you play 10 Twenty20s in a row, you can't put money on who's going to win because it's so variable. But in 50-over cricket, the better side will win more often than not,” snapped Gilchrist at Cochin, as if to suggest India’s success in South Africa had much to do with the format than a sudden resurgence in their cricketing prowess.

As the war of words continues, Gilchrist has hit where it hurts India.

But this series has already seen things, that are hurting the game, most.

I felt the pre series Babel typified the Aussie idiosyncrasy. But inside the ring, players from both sides are plumbing new lows. It is one thing to be aggressive and other, to be downright vicious (in your mannerism), given that millions of kids of impressionable age are watching you. If this is what is being dished out at the start of the series then I do not want to imagine how ugly things can turn at the end of it. Someone needs to reign in the players, and fast too.

Aside that, there has been some fascinating cricket, mostly, and expectedly, from the men in yellow. Australians bat deep and inspite of none so good start from the openers, they have managed 300 plus totals in both the matches. It is a tribute to their strength that a player like Brad Haddin has had to wait on the fringe so long. Or perhaps, Michael Clarke and Symmonds should consider themselves plain lucky that they broke into to this champion team in their early twenties.

But for the rain at Bangalore, Australians would have headed to the ‘Charminar city’ with a comfortable 2-0 lead.

Indians have found out how difficult life can be, post world cup win. And as Emily Dickinson would say, Fame is a fickle food. Ask Tendulkar and Dravid, whose heads are almost on the chopping block, coming as it does on the back of a successful overseas tour of England.

With selectors picking the team for the next four one dayers, Rohit Sharma and Virendra Sehwag will most certainly bulldoze their way into the team after the Hyderabad one dayer. The question is at whose expense? Can India afford the luxury of playing the ‘big three’ in all the matches from here on? Even if the selectors defer taking a call on the future of ‘big three’ in the ODIs, can they keep public sentiments at bay?

These are tough questions and it would be most unfortunate if the future of Sachin Tendulkar, Saurav Ganguly and Rahul Dravid is allowed to be dictated by public outburst than common sense. Selectors and the powers that be in the BCCI should talk to these players and chalk out a road map for their eventual retirement from the ODIs, regardless of the outcome of this series.

For the starters though, India must square the series at Hyderabad, failing which, they will need to beat the Australians in next four matches – something the Indian team has never done before.

Did Vengsarkar and co miss a trick?

Indian team is only one test away from the all-important England tour, yet we are no where close to finding answers to the problems that besieged Indian cricket after the World Cup debacle.

Bangladesh tour has gone horribly wrong so far, both in the timing and manner of cricket. While we can reluctantly give BCCI some benefit of doubt on the timing of the series, the same can't be said of the selectors. Indian cricket stands exactly on the same ground where it began before the Bangladesh series, perhaps with few more questions.

Vengsarkar and co should have treaded the unknown waters with some bold and imaginative selections. World cup debacle presented them a perfect opportunity to do so. After all, it was only a series against Bangladesh, where few more risks would not have been out of order.

But as Ian Chappell said, "You can intimidate teams that allow themselves to be intimidated". India allowed themselves to be intimidated by a world cup defeat against Bangladesh and it reflected in the team selections.

One of the major worries for India is its opening pair. Sehwag has been a good performer in tests – infact, he has been one of the best players in tests for India in last two years, save the recent SA series - but his pathetic ODI form has completely overshadowed the test performances. Not surprising at all, considering the obscenely high number of ODIs that India has played during this period. But it was expected that the ‘wise men’ looked through the maze of ODI figures and retain him for tests. Instead, we find Sehwag playing the ODIs and flying home when the tests began. With Jaffer getting a pair in first test, we are left with a situation where the opening configuration in England is a secret, which selectors themselves may not know. Gambhir and Jaffer have shown themselves to be too ‘flashy’ to succeed in English conditions. A player like Akash Chopra, with all the right ingredients for an opener, would have made a better choice.

The middle order though has a fairly settled look, at least for the moment. It is here that I feel selectors should have looked for the unknowns. It was a given fact that the big three – Sachin, Saurav and VVS would be back in the team for England tour, no matter what. Why not try the likes of Rohit Sharma and Cheteshwar Pujara to go along with Dravid and Yuvraj for lesser series against Bangladesh? But sometimes, the fear of losing can be worse than losing itself and I suspect it played heavily in the minds of selectors.

One of the myths that is being perpetuated along the cricketing corridors is about the strength of Indian bowling. The ambling Munaf Patel is an Indian equivalent of Michael Vaughn, the inconsistent Zaheer Khan, an Indian Harmison. VRV Singh and RP Singh are yet to make any meaningful impact in their short careers. Only exceptions are Shreesanth and the old workhorse Anil Kumble, both of whom are currently injured. Admittedly, conditions in England favour the fast bowling and some of them could still make an impact. But I would have expected selectors to be proactive and rope in Bengal's Ranadeb Bose, Hyderabad’s Absolem or Delhi’s Ishant Sharma (who is now likely to make debut in the second test), only to give them a feel of what test class is all about.

Vengsarkar and co may have lost a golden opportunity to blood in youngsters at the very start of a busy season for Indian cricket. But then, planning for long term was never an Indian selector’s forte, was it?