Indian cricket has been wrapped in suspense the past week. As I write this on a balmy Saturday afternoon, teams that will make it to the IPL play-offs are yet to be known: save that Pune and Punjab are out. This still leaves six teams fighting for four places, and it can’t get any tighter.
Coming up Sunday is also the election of the new president of the BCCI at the Special General Meeting in Mumbai. This is the second time within a year that the BCCI has become headless. And while the choice will be declared 'unanimous’ after the election, be assured there will be hectic parleys till the voting actually takes place.
Anurag Thakur, the 41-year-old BJP MP from Himachal Pradesh and currently honorary secretary, is set to be elected unopposed. Stands to reason too considering that he will have the backing of the central government, and state cricket associations that owe allegiance to the BJP.
But last minute give-and-takes are not uncommon in BCCI politics. There is also another suspense story building up, expected to unravel soon after the election of the President and the completion of the IPL, which in many ways is more germane to how Indian cricket shapes up in the next few years: namely, selecting a coach for the team. Since the dip in Duncan Fletcher’s fortunes on the tour of England in 2014 (though he continued in the position till the 2015 World Cup), Ravi Shastri took charge as Team Director, continuing intermittently till the T20 World Cup some weeks ago, going from one assignment to another.
All through this period, the issue of who would be chief coach was put on the backburner. With all major players giving thumbs up to Shastri, and the former captain making plain that he was enjoying the job, it appeared that Shastri being retained was a done deal.
In the past few weeks, however, mixed signals have emerged. Test captain Virat Kohli has opined that Daniel Vettori, who works with the Bangalore franchise, would make a fine choice for the Indian team too. Elsewhere, Sunil Gavaskar has suggested Rahul Dravid’s name, which was supported strongly by Harbhajan Singh.
Without getting into particular individuals and their merits or otherwise, a fundamental issue for the BCCI will be whether to choose a foreigner or an Indian. This is hardly a new debate, but no less important for that, as it tends to play up depending on the fortunes of the side.
In the past, key members of the team themselves would suggest that a foreigner be chosen to keep the politics of Indian cricket out of the dressing room. As the sport has got more globalised, the concept of 'foreigner’ has also got mitigated.
At the same time, coaches who can’t understand 'local’ mindsets and ethos can be put to deep struggle. In recent years, growing professionalism and media scrutiny has increased accountability and there are none of the usual 'shelters’ for Indian coaches.
It’s not a plain vanilla choice, therefore. Several pros and cons to consider in either situation for the troika of Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and V V S Laxman, appointed by the BCCI to provide direction (and names) in such matters. But whatever the choice, there are some key determinants I would advocate.
a) The captain’s 'buy in’ is crucial. Even more so in Indian cricket currently when there are different captains for Test and limited overs cricket.
b) The coach must be in tune with modern cricket and the needs, fears and concerns of today’s players, not living in some time warp.
c) The appointment should be for a period reasonably long to make an impact. Five years is too long and one year too little. Three years till the next 50-over World Cup seems just right.
d) This is a lucrative assignment, but must come attached with delivery of results: good pay and hefty bonuses for defined milestones. Indian cricket is the richest in the world, yet the Indian team is not the best in the sport. Being number 1 in all formats should be the target.
