A tinge of disappointment perhaps but nothing more
Partab Ramchand - 6 August 2001
The denouement must have come as a disappointment to the millions of
Indian cricket followers the world over. But let's face facts. Without
Sachin Tendulkar, was there a realistic chance of winning the Coca-
Cola Cup tournament in the face of competition from two sides, one
businesslike and the other always formidable at home? The format of
the tournament was such that it gave enough opportunities to every
side to recover from a bad start - as indeed it helped India. So one
can't have any complaints on that score. It's just that in the final
analysis India faltered at the last hurdle yet again in the face of
some inspired play by Sanath Jayasuriya and his men.
We Indians, an over emotional bunch, always believe that our super
heroes can win almost all the time and almost against any opposition.
There is this tendency to downplay the achievements of members of the
opposing sides and talk only about the great players in the Indian
ranks. The fact remains that both New Zealand and Sri Lanka are very
good sides. Besides winning the World Cup in 1996, Sri Lanka have
shown that they are not a team who can be taken lightly against any
opposition and in home conditions, in familiar wicket and weather
conditions, in front of a wildly partisan crowd, they can be a
handful. If nothing, figures bear this out. They have won five out of
six one-day competitions played in the island nation in the last six
years. And New Zealand too showed by their triumph at the ICC KnockOut
tournament at Nairobi last year that they had shed the bridesmaid tag
once and for all.
Given this background, it should have been obvious to everyone -
except for the unreasonably optimistic Indian cricket fan - that
winning the Coca-Cola Cup was not going to be a cinch - especially
with Tendulkar not around. In retrospect, a spot in the final and a
loss to Sri Lanka cannot be termed as a totally unexpected result. Why
then is the feeling of disappointment so pronounced especially when
for long it seemed like India would not even figure in the final?
Well, there are various factors for this. For one thing, in
Tendulkar's absence, the opening slot became a sort of lottery. That
four combinations were tried out in seven matches tells its own sorry
inconsistent sale. This sort of shuffling can only lead to disaster as
exemplified by the fact that for the first five matches, the average
partnership for the first wicket was nine. And though Ganguly and
Shewag came good with a stand of 143 runs against New Zealand, it was
another early departure for the opening pair in the final.
A second major disappointment was that the newcomers, despite many
chances, did not grab the opportunities that came their way. Some tell
tale statistics will illustrate this. Hemang Badani in six innings
scored just 78 runs. Amay Khurasia, who was probably lucky to make the
trip in the first place, got 12 runs from two innings. Reetinder Singh
Sodhi from five innings scored just 83 runs. Yuvraj Singh had one
success and four failures - not a very encouraging ratio for a player
who is still considered one of the most promising cricketers in the
land.
The bowling was always going to be the weaker of the two departments
so one does not want to be overly critical of the bowlers. And yet it
must be said that at crucial junctures, most notably in the final,
Ashish Nehra and Zaheer Khan let the side down. Yuvraj Singh, suddenly
finding himself in the unfamiliar role of a frontline bowler did
reasonably well and of course not much was expected of RS Sodhi and
Shewag. Perhaps Mohanty should have played in more than one match and
certainly Ganguly himself should have bowled more are the only other
points that one can make.
The inconsistency of the players was another irritating factor. Each
member had one - maybe two - good performances which were almost
buried somewhere amidst four or five failures. Both the experienced
players and the youngsters were guilty of this. Rahul Dravid was
fairly consistent with his run getting but in his case, the strike
rate left much to be desired. About the only exception was Harbhajan
Singh. The 21-year-old off spinner was easily the outstanding Indian
player in the tournament. Taking wickets, keeping the batsmen
guessing, restricting the scoring rate and trying out his bag of
tricks even in the limited overs game, Harbhajan was a shining star.
The negative aspects are serious points to ponder over, but overall
there is nothing very much to be discouraged about. Perhaps a touch of
disappointment is understandable. But then again one must not forget
the tremendous fightback by the team in winning three matches in a row
when all was thought lost. For once, the tag of chokers would not seem
to be in order. India lost to a better team. Perhaps the final margin
could have been narrower. And perhaps the result might have been
different had Tendulkar been around. But at best that can only be
conjecture for the moment.
© CricInfo
Teams
|
India,
Sri Lanka.
|
Players/Umpires
|
Sachin Tendulkar,
Hemang Badani,
Reetinder Sodhi,
Yuvraj Singh,
Ashish Nehra,
Zaheer Khan,
Debasis Mohanty,
Sourav Ganguly,
Virender Shewag,
Rahul Dravid,
Harbhajan Singh.
|
Tournaments
|
Coca-Cola Cup (Sri Lanka) |