And so, for one last time before this diary turns its attention to matters further afield, the focus remains on cricket. And speaking of that, does it amuse you, as it does me, how so much of cricket thinking revolves around a set of hoary old cliches? There is this to be said for a cliche, that beneath the irritation caused by its constant iteration, there is a kernel of truth that can't be denied. Some of cricket's cliches, though, don't even have that edge of truth going for it. One such, which I think needs quick burial, is 'home advantage'. Apparently it is this mystical, unquantifiable commodity that had the bookmakers installing England as fourth favourite to take the trophy. It is, we are told, the same thinking that had the English authorities decide to risk the uncertain May weather and hold the tournament during that period, in order to maximise this 'advantage'. We know what happened. And why are we surprised anyway? This is the seventh straight time the home team has failed to win the World Cup. Which, when you think about it, is not too hot a precedent for South Africa, which will host the 2003 World Cup, is it? The latest issue of The Week landed up on my table yesterday and what do you know? The cover headline reads: Jadeja should be captain of India. No ifs, no buts, just a plain statement of fact. I haven't yet read the story, but then again, do I need to? We are a funny lot we Indians -- I sometimes think the job we -- okay, a lot of us -- are best fitted for is that of sticking labels on jam-jars. I mean, look at how we stick them on people anyway. I remember the early days, when Anil Kumble with his glasses used regularly to be called 'a brilliant reader of the game'. For all we know, he may be that and more -- but what evidence did we base that perception on in the first place? I could give you more examples, but the point I am driving at should be evident with just the one. Meanwhile, I'll steer well clear of this whole 'who should lead India?' debate, thanks much. Or rather, I'll steer clear of naming names. I did, however, have a thought on the subject. Suppose I were the sole selector. And I were sitting down to think this question through today. How would I -- ideally, how SHOULD I -- approach it? First item before me would be the fact that in the immediate future, India plays a tri-series in Sri Lanka, Australia forming the third angle to the triangle. And then takes on New Zealand at home in a Test and ODI series. The tri-series is pretty much a lottery. On current form, you'd pick Australia and India to clash in the final, and the outcome of that -- despite Australia's status as World Cup champions, or even because of it -- could go either way. The New Zealand Test series is another matter. With due respect to Stephen Fleming and his Black Caps, there is only one possible outcome when the two teams meet on Indian soil. And this in turn means it doesn't really matter who the captain is -- pretty much any of the playing eleven could lead the side and come away with a win. So then my thinking needs to be, what is the first big challenge ahead before the Indian team? The answer is immediate and obvious -- the Millennium tour of Australia. That's the big one -- the powerful Australians at home, on their kind of pitches, to the Indians who, despite the deeds of guys like Rahul Dravid, Saurav Ganguly and Sachin Tendulkar, are universally believed to be incapable of facing top quality pace on bouncing wickets. That is going to be as tough as it gets, so the question I, as selector, would be asking myself is this: who do I want leading India to Australia? To answer this, I'd need to look at those players who are, first, absolute certainities to get into the side, which means quality players of quick bowling; second, players who not only earn a berth, but are good enough to command the respect of the opposition. Australia plays its cricket with an aggressive edge -- if you are the meek kind that believes that someday you will inherit the earth (probably when there is no one else left?), then they will roll over you before you've even begun to spell 'contest'. So that would be the blueprint ahead of me when I sit down to pick my captain. And when you look at it this way, there aren't too many names to pick from, are there? I'd pick the right man now. And give him the team, so he can settle down to the task against the less demanding backdrop of the home series against New Zealand, mould the team the way he wants it and bring it together as a cohesive unit before readying to fly Down Under. Pick a stop-gap for now -- which, I suspect, the selectors just might do -- and we might as well concede defeat to the Aussies without bothering to book the flight tickets there, even. Australia is no place for a stop-gap captain or one very new to the job, and that is for certain sure. September is a while away yet, but already my mailbox brought eight different letters, arguing the toss on whether we should or should not field a team in Toronto for the fifth edition of the Sahara Cup. One viewpoint seems to be that we should take on Pakistan and beat it in any and all available arenas -- the battlefield, the diplomatic fora, the cricket field, whatever. The other view is that playing sport against a country actively engaged in war against us is just not on. Frankly, I tend to go with the latter segment of public opinion. In other words, I think we should not send a team to Toronto, no matter what. There is no longer anything covert about Pakistan's intentions vis a vis us -- it is open war, without even the courtesy of declaring it. And it is a cheap, cowardly kind of war -- smiles on diplomatic lips and shells across the border, that kind of thing. I don't know about you, but I like my enemies straightforward. If someone stands up and, in your face, declares himself the enemy, fine -- I'll try and handle that to the best of my ability. It is the back-slapping, hail fellow well met kind, who oozes bon homie even as he plans how best to shaft you, that makes my skin crawl. And that is what is happening on our border -- murder and mayhem unlimited while Pakistan shows, to the world, a look of wide-eyed, who-me? innocence. I don't see a single thing to be gained by simulating war on a cricket field. The party line -- that cricket builds bridges between the two peoples -- is something even the parrots spouting it don't believe, for it very evidently does nothing of the kind. But the biggest reason not to play is this -- if India steps onto a playing field with Pakistan before this whole issue of cross-border infiltration and war without the declaration is sorted out, and if we the fans sit here cheering and yelling and having the heck of a good time, that will be the ultimate mockery of the blood being spilt every day in Kargil and other sectors along the border. I don't know how you see it -- but there is something positively obscene about the thought of a sporting encounter with a nation who takes prisoners of war without declaring war, who returns soldiers sans their eyes and noses and private parts. It is an obscenity I wouldn't want to watch, let alone cover. Executive Editor Prem Panicker is taking a well deserved holiday in Goa this week.
HOME | NEWS | BUSINESS | SPORTS | MOVIES | CHAT | INFOTECH | TRAVEL | SINGLES BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | GIFT SHOP | HOTEL RESERVATIONS | WORLD CUP 99 EDUCATION | PERSONAL HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | FEEDBACK