Learn from Dhiraj Parsana how to stab the nation

So, India suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of South Africa by an innings and 90 runs. This is the biggest loss on the home turf in the last 49 years (Australia led by Richie Benaud, beat India by an innings, and 127 runs in 1959). But there is hardly any surprise in the upshot. If you could not predict this result, then you are not a good follower of Indian cricket. When you hand a green top with lot of moisture on a silver platter to your enemy, who has a lethal fast bowling attack, this is the only outcome that could have resulted. I predicted the result with the precision of pointing an innings defeat from the very beginning of the match to my friends. Admitting the facts that our over-hyped batting line up could not live up to its reputation, our team management made a blunder by electing to bat first, and our bowlers lacked sharpness and zeal, I have to blame the pitch curator as the main culprit behind this shameful defeat. The following are the main reasons:

1.Treachery of the curator: Treachery is nothing new in India. In 1192, Indians could not resist the invading Turks, led by Muhammad Ghuri, because of treachery of one of the very powerful ruler of an Indian state, Jaichand of Kannauj. In 1757, the British could conquer Bengal in the battle of Plassey because of the treachery of Mirzafar, the most senior General of the then Nawab Siraz-ud-Daulla. There are plenty more such examples. Before the freedom struggle began against the British from the late 19th century, the concept of a united Indian nation was missing. But slowly the concept of nationalism began to found a strong base. We are aware of the role played by Sardar Patel in uniting the princely states after India obtained Independence. Since then we never looked back, and grew stronger and stronger as a powerful nation. Anyway, let us come back to the issue and examine whether the curator is indeed a traitor or not. In my opinion, the curator, who has been given full support by the Gujarat Cricket Association, is a traitor, because he presented the visiting team a green pitch as an early X-mass gift, which ultimately resulted in an innings defeat for the home team. There can be mainly two possibilities for keeping a green top, ignoring the requests from the selectors and the team management: either the curator might have thought that it would not harm India, or he might have done it intentionally to humiliate India. Not only the curator, but also anyone who had thought that India could cope with South Africa on such a green top must be an idiot of the highest order. Some foreign commentators were intentionally overestimating Indian's ability to play on a green top, so that the fool administrators fall into their trap. It is almost certain that the curator did it intentionally knowing fully well about the consequences. Now the point is why did he do it? There maybe several reasons for that. Firstly, the curator might have been under the influence of some external betting agencies, which wanted to fix the result of the match in an indirect way, without involving the cricketers. Those who knew what the conditions were going to be must have made huge amount of money. Secondly, there could have been some politics involved here. In the Dalmiya era, we saw how his opponents provided a green top in Nagpur against Australia in 2004-05, or how a green pitch was gifted to South Africa at the Eden Gardens by the sympathisers of Ganguly in the ODI series in 2005. So, it is nothing new in Indian cricket to settle personal scores at the cost of the nation's loss. Here in this case this particular possibility is very thin, though. Thirdly, the curator might have wanted to earn some praise from the foreign press. Some Indians, even after 61 years after independence, could not shake off the colonial hangover, and still today they are beggars of some kind words from the "gora sahibs". Fourthly, some people might have wanted to discredit Anil Kumble so that he could be removed from captaincy early. Fifthly, the curator might have had some personal grudges (see his profile at http://www.cricketfundas.com/dhirajparsana.html), which he settled in this manner. There maybe some other reasons too, but my gut feeling says, it is the first reason that was instrumental behind making such a deadly pitch against Indians.

2.Wrong decision of the team management: The decision to bat first on a green top, having moisture underneath it, and against the world's best bowling line up, is not at all a good decision, especially from the experienced person like Anil Kumble who had seen the team's performance on such lethal tracks over the years. In this regard, who can forget India's miserable surrender against Simon Doull's swing bowling in New Zealand in 1998-99? In that match too, the first two hours proved decisive. On such a grassy track, Indian batters have always struggled. There are plenty more examples. Here it will be interesting to note that in Australia, there was not a single grassy pitch in the last series. The decision cannot be backed up by saying that India wanted to exploit the spinning conditions in the 4th innings. Because in that case India would have had a third spinner instead of Irfan Pathan. Indian pacers could have also wrecked havoc, if they were given the opportunity to ball first. South African captain G. Smith, supporting Kumble's decision, at the post match conference, said that he would have batted, too. I think he is diplomatic here, because with the resource of such an ineffective spinner Harris, while having 3 great quickies, no body would have liked to waste an opportunity to go at the fragile batting line up of the opponent in such a pacer friendly condition.

For Kumble, neither playing with 4 bowlers in a placid track, nor playing with an extra bowler in a fast green wicket is a good idea.

3. Failure of the batters: It was indeed disappointing to find our batters having no answer to the excellent bowling of Stein, Ntini and Morkel. For the Indian batters, there were some technical drawbacks, e.g., the footwork was missing, but most importantly, it appeared to me from the highlights that they got nervous and afraid in front of great pace attack. Indians batters forgot Gabbar Singh's famous quote, " Jo daar gaya, samjho uoh maar gaya (The moment fear enters you, you are gone)" in the Hindi film Shole. Sachin's absence also denied the middle order the much needed resistance and stability. Though recently Rahul Dravid scored a century, I think he is no longer the dependable wall as he used to be. As far as Wasim Jafar is concerned, I don’t know on which extra-cricketing ground he is in the team, while Goutam Gambhir, who was in splendid form in Australia, is languishing in the dressing room!

4.Disappointing performance of the bowlers: Unfortunately, our pace attack could not live up to the expectation. Though Irfan did well with the bat, his performance with the ball was not at all satisfactory. The attitude was good for Sreesanth, but he lacked discipline in his line and length. RP's performance was lacklustre. Having said that, I must emphasise that I never expected them to match the South African bowlers, as they are far superior. At the moment, I suppose Stein is the best bowler in the world, supported by another two brilliant bowlers Ntini and Morkel. I cannot understand why our stupid cricket administrators do not understand this. If we are to beat them, we have to beat them by spin.

Recently, in an article the South African coach Mickey Arthur warned the Indian that their fast bowlers could prove equally deadly in an under-prepared spinning track, too. Though preparing an under-prepared track does not arise as per the guidelines of the ICC, I agree with him that there is always something for the pacers, even in the most spinner-friendly tracks. We saw how J. Srinath devastated South Africa in the same venue in the second innings in 1996. So, I suppose the South Africans will not fret, if they are given a spinning track. Finally, as far as pitch issue is concerned, I would suggest to prepare such green tops for the domestic competitions, or against weaker teams, in terms of fast bowling, such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, England etc, but not against a formidable team like South Africa or for that matter Australia.

Kumble don't be pusillanimous

It is indeed disappointing that the first test between India and South Africa is going to end in a tame draw, unless some miracles happen -- which is highly unlikely -- on the final day. It is disappointing because when you get the Proteas, or for that matter any team from outside the sub-continent, on your home soil, you should try to humble them brutally. Because on their soil you are on the defence and more often or not humbled, but here you have the home advantage: you must know the implications of the word. But unfortunately, over the last few years, India has not been able to do that mainly because of our team's overcautious approach. In this context, without going into the details of every series, I would like to mention only one series where we frittered away our opportunities to take a much needed revenge. In 2002-03 series in New Zealand, we were very badly beaten on the under-prepared, grassy tracks. But just few months after, when our turn came on our home ground, the pusillanimous, record-conscious Indian batters failed to settle the scores, and the series ended in a boring 0-0 draw. The pitches of that series were also to be blamed, as they were bowlers' graveyards. Now this series against South Africa is also very important from the aspect of taking revenge, as we lost 1-2 against them in 2006-07 in the away series. But what have we done? We have lost a great opportunity to go ahead in the series from the beginning. Now let us try to find some of the main reasons. But before that let me confess that I could not see the match so far. My analysis is based on the newspaper, Internet and television reporting and feedback from my personal secretary.

1. Playing with only 2 spinners: This strategy of a team whose captain himself is a legendary (at least from the aspect of taking wickets, and that is what matters: it is immaterial how much one spins the ball) leg-spinner is highly surprising to me. India's heydays (though India's undefeated stint on home soil had started from 87-88 series against W.I) in test cricket on home soil had begun in the year 1992-93 when India knocked out England by a clean sweep of 3-0. Since then India had beaten almost every visiting team (it drew with W. I in 1994-95) until 1999 when South Africa defeated it (under Sachin Tendulkar's captaincy). [Source: http://stats.cricinfo.com/india/engine/records/team/series_results.html?class=1;id=6;type=team ]
India's days of glory had begun under the captaincy of Azharuddin. The key reason behind almost all the successes on home soil was the vital part played by 3 spinners. Initially, they were Kumble, Raju and Chauhan. Later on many others joined the list. The spinners created a magic wave, which befuddled the visiting side batters, who had been technically weak against good spin bowling. A left-arm spinner would have definitely added variety to the attack. But, as Kartik is injured, I found no reason to drop Piyush Chawla, who could have been quite useful with his traditional legbreaks. On batting-friendly tracks with true bounce, sometimes Kumble is sorted out by opposition batters, because of his lack of variation and spin. If you don't play a promising kid like Chawla in India, where will you play him?

2. Defensive approach: Continuing from the last point, a pertinent question may be who to drop? Who should Chawla replace? The answer is very simple: either drop a pacer, or drop one batsman. An aggressive captain, on home soil, on batting friendly (or spinner-friendly, because the opposition does not have any quality spinner) wickets, will definitely drop one batsman. If you drop one pacer then there is not much of a problem either, because Ganguly, a man with a golden arm, can always open the bowling attack. He had successfully done so against Australia, Pakistan on home soil in the past. If you drop one batsman, then again there is not much of a problem, because on Indian soil it is useless to play 7 batters in a test match. The dropped player must be Wasim Jafar, because of his lacklustre performances in the last few series. If one drops Jafar, there may be a problem in the opening slot, as Rahul Dravid had shown his unwillingness to shoulder the responsibility of opening in the past, which up to some extent is justified. But Ganguly can be sent to open, because he has been a regular opener in the one-dayers. It will be also good for him, because he himself in the past had lamented that he did not get much opportunity on many occasions to play big innings at the number 6 slot because of lack of partners. One could have also come up with the name Sachin Tendulkar for the opening slot, as he also opens the batting in one-dayers. But Sachin in any place other than number 4 is quite unthinkable to many. Anyway, this decision has to be a very bold decision. Some section of the media or some people may be offended. But one must remember that the team's interest comes first than any thing else. But judging from the character of Kumble, who is a nice man, I don’t think he can take this bold step. Had India had an allrounder of the quality of Kapil Dev, this problem could have been solved easily.
3. Placid pitch: If you are to beat a formidable side like South Africa, you have to attack their weakest point with full force. Of course, most of their batters are susceptible to good spin bowling. So the pitches should be tailor made for spinners, of course without making them under-prepared. Chennai used to be a spinners' paradise, but no longer. The next two venues Ahmedabad and Kanpur are also known to have spinner-friendly tracks. Let us see whether the curators there can do their job properly.

4. Inability of the batters to accelerate the scoring rate: Save for Sehwag, who is a Houdini on his day, the other batters could not keep up the high-scoring rate. This has been happening over the years. Some batsmen play only for their records: the team's interest comes later. In test cricket, one does not expect a scoring rate of 80 (runs per hundred balls). But scoring rate below 50, in modern day test cricket, is unacceptable to a side, which wants to be the number one in future. Initially, one may take time to settle down, even he is justified to take time to score his first 50 runs, but then he must compensate the low-scoring rate. Also, when one bats with tail-enders, with very little reputation in batting, one should shield them, and play as much balls as possible. Steve Waugh was justified to expose them, because he personally coached them batting techniques, and under his captaincy the Australian tail improved a lot.

Since I did not see the match yet, I cannot go into specific details. But the aforesaid reasons seemed to be the primary reasons for India's inability to secure a win, as it seems now.

Revive the sports policy

There has been a lot of hue and cry, lamentation, accusations, counter accusations, and vilification after India ignominiously failed to qualify for the Olympics 2008. There has been a strong demand for the IHF President K.P.S Gill's head from a section of former Olympians, some disgruntled players, the media and the public. I read an article published in Asian Age on 16th March, written by Rahul Banerji, on the performance of Indian hockey team during the tenure of Gill, i.e., from 1994 onwards till date. I found the performance not that unimpressive at all. India got Gold in 1998 Asian games, Bangkok, 2001 Champion Challenge, Kuala Lumpur; India was Champion in 2003 Asia Cup, Kuala Lumpur, 2007 Asia Cup, Chennai. India held to second position in 1994 in Asian games, Hiroshima, in 2002 Asian Games, Busan. India was in third position in 1999 Asia Cup K. Lumpur, 2007 Champions Challenge, Boom. There were also quite a few fourth positions. Also, Gill claims that India has been doing very well in the junior and sub-junior levels. I have no comments on whether Gill should resign, or he should be sacked, or he should complete his tenure, as I think the failure is not a matter of one individual or just a single sport. As far as hockey is concerned, India's failure brings a lot of sadness to the romantic, nostalgic sports lovers, because India has been 8 times (6 in a row from 1928 to 1956) Olympic Champions. But unfortunately, this was the tale of the past, as India's rot started since the introduction of Astro Turfs in the early seventies. The winning of Gold in the Moscow Olympic in 1980, where only a few hockey powers participated, was a fluke. Since then we have hoped for good results every time India participated in an international tournament, but have not done anything to rejuvenate the system. So, every time we met with disappointment. Not only in hockey, but also in other sports (save for cricket), too, there is a need to overhaul the system.

1. Infrastructure: "There is a severe inadequacy of basic sports infrastructure at the grassroots level, especially in rural areas. Similarly, there is also a lack of sports competitions in the rural areas. The access to sports and games facilities in schools and colleges is very discouraging with hardly 30 million out of the 210 million students having such access. Overall, hardly 50 million out of the 770 million youth, adolescents and children have access to organised sports."( http://sportal.nic.in/shownews.asp?nid=190&maincatid=68) As far as hockey is concerned, I was listening to a television discussion where one expert told that even an ordinary town in Holland has more number of Astro Turfs than entire India has. Recently, in an article in a magazine, one former Olympian demanded installation of at least 100 new Astro Turfs in India. He also demanded one time release of rupees 500 crore exclusively for hockey. Considering this year's normal sports budget of 1111.81 crore rupees (http://www.domain-b.com/economy/budget/union_budget_2008/spreport/20080301_sports_gets.html), he maybe a bit emotional. Also, India deserves equivalent development of all other sports. My proposal is that there should be a national academy, and 5 regional academies for every major sport. Some of the sports of similar nature can be clubbed together in a single academy for convenience. "Panchayat Yuva Krida Aur Khel Abhiyan (PYKKA)", as one can find in the above link, is an innovative proposal. But I am not too optimistic about its successful implementation, because the panchayat system itself has not stood on its feet in the country yet.

2. Foreign Coaches: Since foreign exchange reserve is no longer a constraint, it is imperative to introduce foreign coaches in various games, where our coaches lack technical expertise. Giving the Australian Ric Charlesworth the responsibility of reviving hockey is a forward-looking step in my opinion. It should be ensured that he gets all the co-operation and assistance that he needs. We should be very selective about choosing foreign coaches. They should be as eminent and experienced as Ric is. In football we have been settling for some ordinary foreign coaches in the recent past.
3.Preparing national coaches: Our own national players and coaches should be given proper training for coaching. They should be sent to foreign countries for undergoing training courses. More former players should be encouraged to take coaching as their career.
4. Talent search: The Sports Authority of India has been doing the job, without much success. The number of students under SAI is very meagre: around 9645 covered under 4 schemes such as the NSTC, the ABSC, the SAG and the STC (visit http://sportsauthorityofindia.nic.in/default.htm). As proposed in the PYKKA, the annual block and district level competitions, beside the state and national level competitions should provide scope for selecting talents.
5.More foreign exposure to the players: India can afford to do so. It makes them feel the toughness of competition form the early age.
6. Ensure jobs for the players: Those players undergoing training in the academies who do not make it to the top, should be given alternative job prospects so that they can whole-heartedly concentrate on the game. Inducting them as game teachers in schools is one way of doing so.
7. Bring professionals with managerial skills to head sports: Initially helping a sport by providing government money is okay, but a sport cannot depend on government support perpetually. As cricket has proved to be a great commercial success, other sports too can emulate it, if managed properly. For football and hockey, it is rather difficult to lure the advertisers in the same way as cricket does, but tennis can do so, as it is also full of breaks (though not as much as cricket has) and has some good-looking stars.
8. Responsibility of the media: Media has a great responsibility in popularising sports. If it gives three-fourth of the sports space to cover only cricket, then it is indeed difficult for other sports to flourish. Maybe the media is catering to the interest of the public. But, the interest of the public is not a constant thing; it can be altered. Even the minor successes in other sports should be highlighted in a big way. Vishwanathan Anand is perhaps the greatest sports person India has ever produced, but he does not get even one-tenth of the coverage that Sachin Tendulkar gets. In school and competitive examinations, some compulsory questions should be asked from various sports.

There can be several other suggestions, but following the aforesaid steps India can improve rapidly in various sports. Making a priority list is not a bad step, as we should give more encouragement to those sports where India can get more medals quickly. But omitting hockey from the priority list, though Mani Shankar Aiyar can gloat now after this debacle in Santiago, was a strange decision to say the least.

Australia Knocked Off The Pedestal

Having won the away odi series against Bangladesh by a clean sweep of 3-0, South Africa shoved Australia from the number one slot in the ICC odi rankings for teams on 14.03.08. Honestly, Australia's dominance in shorter version of the game in the recent years was first challenged when they were beaten by England in the Commonwealth Bank Series in 2006-07, and then humiliated (a clean sweep of 3-0) by New Zealand in New Zealand. But very soon they recovered, and came back strongly by winning the World Cup 2007 in West Indies. But then in T-20 World Cup in South Africa, they were outplayed by India at the semi-finals: India won the match by 15 runs. But soon they took their revenge and convincingly defeated India in India by a margin of 4-2. Then they also won the Chappel-Hadlee trophy against New Zealand. But then happened the devastating defeat against India in the Commonwealth Bank Series in 2008. Now adding insult to injury South Africa has toppled them from the numero uno slot. Before discussing whether Australia can again bounce back to their place of dominance, let me point out some factors behind their debacle against India.

1. Lack of penetration in bowling attack: Unfortunately, after retirement of Warne and McGrath, a vacuum was created, which has yet not been filled up. The replacement of Shane Warne, the wizard of OZ, will be extremely difficult to find; Australia has to live with this fact. But in the medium pace department two new players have tried to put them in McGrath's shoes. At least, from statistical point of view, M Johnson has shown some promise, but Stuart Clark, neither actually, nor statistically, could live up to the expectation. There is hardly any similarity between Stuart Clark and McGrath except for the speed. While McGrath's average was 21.98, Stuart Clark's is 29.88 (Johnson's is 25.41, Bracken's is 21.89, Bret Lee's is 22.80, Warne's was 25.82, Gillespie's was 25.42). Speaking of runs per over, while McGrath's was 3.87 (that was top class), Stuart Clark's is 5.06 (Johnson's is 4.80, Bracken's is 4.37, Lee's is 4.71, Warne's was 4.25, Gillespie's was 4.21). As far as strike rate is concerned, while McGrath's was 34, Stuart Clark's is 35.2 (Johnson's is 31.7, Bracken's is 30, Lee's is 29, Warne's was 36.4, Gillespie's was 36.2). Source: http://stats.cricinfo.com/baggygreen/engine/records/averages/bowling.html?class=2;id=2;type=team
A composite index (c.i.= ave*eco*sr) is a good indicator to measure the effectiveness of a bowler; the lower the value the better the bowler. From that point of view we see that Stuart Clark (5443) is way behind McGrath (2892). Michel Johnson's composite index is 3867, Hopes' 7011, Lee's 3114, Warne's was 3994, Gillespie's was 3874. Among the current players Bracken has an excellent c.i. of 2870. So, from statistical point of view we see that while Stuart Clark is no match for McGrath, Bracken and Johnson's records are good. But here lies the very important fact that eludes boring statistics. The fact is the calibre of McGrath and Warne's wicket taking abilities when the team required it. We saw them snatching victory from the jaws of defeat on many occasions. But Bracken could not do this in the last series. He is a rather defensive bowler who relies more on the fault of a batsman rather than taking the initiative. Bret Lee tried very hard with some genuine aggression throughout the series. But as he was the only true strike bowler to deal with, the Indian batsmen played him with caution, and safely negotiated his overs in the finals. Stuart Clark could never threaten the Indians with his lacklustre bowling. James Hopes is a mediocre bowler, so is Hogg. Thus we saw that the Australian bowlers failed to deliver goods when the team desperately needed it. Some cricket commentators in Australia held the batting responsible for the defeats rather than pointing fingers at the bowling. I do not necessarily disagree with the fact that the batting, mainly because of failures of Ponting, M. Clarke and Gilchrist, could not live up to the expectations (but I don't agree that they were out of form). But in the past (remember the 1999 world cup semifinal and the match before semifinal against South Africa), we have seen many times the Australian formidable bowling attack saving the grace for the team. That was missing this time.

2. Lack of focus: Previously, it was the Australians, who by various means, such as general on field sledging or targeting certain key players throughout the series of verbal assault or launching assorted attacks from their patriotic press outside the field on the touring side, got the psychological advantage. But this time the exactly opposite thing happened. The young, confident Indian brigade met fire with fire in such as way that stunned the Aussie brigade, and they themselves lost the focus. On the contrary, the targeted player Harbhajan Singh relished the challenge, and the dispute had no impact on his performance. Also, the Australian squad was deeply submerged in hubris (recall Ponting's uttering before the final that that the third final would not be required). Thus we see they underestimated the Indian side, and the result was that indeed the third final was not required but at the cost of Australia's loss. In addition to these factors, the big money offers at the IPL league, the surprisingly discriminating auctioning prise for players might have caused shifting of focus.
3. Question mark over batting: I know the Australian cricketers deeply resent this question, but over the years there have been some question marks about their ability to handle quality swing or spin bowling. On flat or sporting tracks, the Aussie batsmen bat like kings, but on bowler-friendly tracks they have struggled over the years. It was indeed disappointing for Aussie supporters to see Ponting struggle against rookie Ishant Sharma. Also, in the finals they struggled to have an answer to Praveen Kumar's swing bowling.
4. Lack of preparedness: The newcomer Praveen Kumar proved a big surprise factor to the Aussies. Clearly, the Aussies did not do good homework to counter his bowling. Also, the strategy against Sachin, Dhoni and few other Indian batters was not correct. I do not want to point out the mistakes.
5. Degradation of standard of fielding: We saw a lot of catches going down throughout the Australian summer, which is very unnatural to their high standard of fielding.

Now the big question is can Australia bounce back to regain their supremacy in the limited version of the game? I will try to find out the answer in my next post.

India Conquered Australia

India's thundering victory Down Under might have come as a pleasant surprise to a large number of fans in India, or as a shock to the cricket pundits in India who held a very sceptical view of the chance's of the team in the Commonwealth Bank series after the selectors had dropped some senior players, or as a slap in the face to the boastful Australian cricket writers who believed in the myth that India could not beat Australia in Australia. But to an analytical, open-minded observer, who has observed the performances of the team over the last 7 years, this victory was always on the card. This performance did not come out of the blue, as India has been doing well since 2002, though not consistently, outside the sub-continent. In the entire decade of nineties, India had not got much success outside the sub-continent, even though the team was strong. But since the winning of the NatWest Trophy in England in 2002, there has been some complete or partial success stories; the major of them are reaching the final of the World Cup in ODIs in 2003, drawing the test series in Australia in 2004, then winning the test series against West Indies and England on their home turfs in recent years, and currently winning the T-20 world cup in 2007 and now adding to the list is the winning of Commonwealth Bank series. So, a particular trend has been seen. There have been some common reasons behind these success stories. With putting particular stress on this series, let us analyse the reasons.
1. Economic strength: Economic strength generally has a direct bearing on the performance of not only cricket, but also all other major sports. Definitely, there are some exceptions (such as brilliant performance of the poor former communist countries), but exception proves the rule. The high GDP growth rate of the country had its impact on the performance in sports, with cricket having the lion share of it. With the arrival of more money in to the game, the infrastructure has been improved (proof, explosion of new talents at the under 19 level), the domestic set up has been given vigour (proof, arrival of cricketers like M.S. Dhoni, R.P. Singh, Praveen Kumar etc from small towns). Money has given the opportunity to build more cricket stadiums, prepare some quality pitches, purchase modern equipments, bring foreign coaches, trainers, physiotherapists etc. It has attracted the young talented cricketers to opt for cricket as their career without any hesitation.
2. Contribution of the foreign coaches: Their contribution has to be mentioned specifically. With the exception of the T-20 world cup win, all the major success stories happened in the tenure of the foreign coaches. I know many former cricketers in India feel uncomfortable to give credit to the foreign coaches, and some of them love to find fault with them at the first opportunity, some even think that cricketers at the international level do not need any coaching. No doubt India has produced some redoubtable cricketers in the past, but unfortunately not a world class coach. Ajit Wadekar's success at home was one-dimensional, as the pitches were tailor made to suit the home side. John Wright brought modern approach to the game, while Greg Chappel tried to lift the team to a new level with his special focus to fitness. I hope the current coach Gary Kirsten will keep up the good work.
3. Emergence of some good pace bowlers: Without a potent pace battery one cannot win on the fast bouncy pitches abroad. In the nineties, Indian cricket commentators always lamented the lack of a quality third pace bowler. But in this new era, India has seen the arrival of plenty of quality pace bowlers. Javagal Srinath, Zahir Khan, Ashish Nehra, Ajit Agarkar, L. Balaji, Irfan Pathan, R.P. Singh, Praveen Kumar, Ishant Sharma etc have contributed immensely to the success story. Unfortunately, some of the bowlers in the list have faded in to oblivion rather at a premature stage. As far as spinners are concerned, India never had a dearth of them.
4. Change in attitude: India being on her 61st year of independence, and the economy being healthy, the youth of the modern age have become more confident, fearless, and aggressive. They are mentally tougher than the former cricketers. They fight till the end, and more importantly they have developed killer's instinct which is essential for getting success in difficult situation.
5. Improvement in fitness: Saving 20 odd runs in an ODI by virtue of good fielding, or stealing 20 runs by dint of good running between the wickets can change the outcome of a match. The fitness of the Indian cricket team, under the guidance of the foreign coaches, has improved over the years. That is precisely why a fitter team was chosen for Australia tour in the ODI tournament.
6. Neutral umpiring: Agreeing that they too sometimes make gross errors, it must be said that up to a large extent they have brought justice to the game, nullifying grievances of the touring side. Previously, the Randells, the Emersosns etc were notorious for their blatantly biased decisions.

The aforesaid reasons are the main factors, which separated the recent success stories from the failures of the nineties outside the sub-continent. Thus we see while a nervous pair of Kiran More and Ravi Shastri had squandered a golden opportunity to win a close finish match at the 1992 World Cup against Australia, a nerveless Irfan Pathan or Joginder Sharma brought glory to the nation. Thus we see while the cricketers of the earlier decade had cowered under abusive sledging from the Aussies, this team paid them back in the same coin. Thus we see while the earlier board had seldom stood behind the cricketers, unfairly held guilty by the ICC, this financially powerful board did not hesitate in flexing muscles.