The better team won

SOME of the reactions following India's debacle in Sri Lanka have been very harsh. No one likes to lose, but I am not one to condemn this Indian side just because it was beaten by a squad which played better cricket. Sri Lanka was the better side and it will help if we accept this fact instead of making some extreme statements about the state of Indian cricket.

There was no doubt that Sri Lanka was a team which was better prepared, but please spare a thought to the fact that the Indian side was a depleted combination. I would call it a second string in the absence of Sachin Tendulkar, V. V. S. Laxman, Anil Kumble, Javagal Srinath and Ashish Nehra. So, before any conclusions are drawn on the calibre of the Indian team, the critics would do well to consider this aspect too.

It was always going to be tough for the Indians in the absence of some established players and it became tougher with the fact that the Sri Lankans were at their best. Their batsmen got runs and the bowlers struck in a collective manner.

In my opinion, the main difference between the sides was the fact that Sri Lanka was served very well by its youngsters while it was a bit of a let down in the case of India.

Just take a look at how the Indian youngsters fared. It was the best chance for some of them to cement their places, especially Hemang Badani and Mohammad Kaif, but both proved unequal to the challenges of international cricket. They played poor cricket, much below their potential and in the process created problems for the team and themselves. The bowlers were also miserable, with Harbhajan Singh struggling. In his case, I do understand that he had problems adjusting to the brand of balls being used for the series but then that can't be held as an excuse. It is time Harbhajan got used to bowling with the Kookaburra brand of balls if he has to excel consistently.

I also feel that too much pressure was put on Harbhajan by all those who were desperate to see India win a series abroad. He could not have bowled the side to a win alone as he did against the Australians at home. The conditions were different and Harbhajan's form too was indifferent. Let us not put too much pressure on this off-spinner.

It was also not fair to compare Harbhajan with Muralitharan because they have little in common. Murali is a very crafty bowler and a matchwinner in all conditions. Being a wrist spinner, he imparts so much spin on the ball - the revolutions are more when Murali bowls in comparison to any other spinner. The revolutions create double nip and bite and that makes him a vicious bowler to tackle. Of course, Murali's skills do matter.

It would also do us well to remember that Murali was backed by a splendid set of close-in fielders. For a spinner to be effective, it is important to have a backup from fielders who would convert half chances. India may not have a Solkar to pick those difficult catches but at least they can look to groom players for these positions.

I was particularly disappointed to see Sameer Dighe's work behind the stumps. It was pretty ordinary and did put the team in awkward spots at various points. Dighe was an utter failure as a wicketkeeper and poor with the bat, at times his technique being very embarrassing. It is time the National selectors decided to pick a young wicketkeeper with the next World Cup being the target.

Sri Lanka had things going its way in a planned manner. The batsmen were at their best with seven of them hitting centuries. It goes to prove that Test cricket is about grinding the attack, occupying the crease and not just producing a sparkling 40. The effort also has to come from all quarters and Sri Lanka showed it was not going to rely on individuals too much like the Indians do.

The Indians tended to rely too much on Rahul Dravid for batting and Harbhajan for bowling. Thing don't work this way in international cricket. The team had a few things to gain and it was nice to see the opening pair come up with consistently good shows. The middle order failed to capitalise on the splendid start by the openers.

I may sound repetitive, but it is time the Board started thinking seriously about grooming players. The concept of the 'A' team has to be revived and the youngsters have to be tested overseas before any judgment is made on their potential. Even coach John Wright is now wanting the Board to concentrate on 'A' tours to improve the technique and temperament of the youngsters who are otherwise spoilt by their successes in domestic cricket.

India has to look for gutsy cricketers if it hopes to do well in contests overseas. There is no point in investing in cricketers who look so good when playing at home, but come a cropper when faced with tough opposition overseas. See what happened to Vijay Bharadwaj, Devang Gandhi, Laxmi Ratan Shukla, Robin Singh (Jr), T. Kumaran... They have all been forgotten by the selectors, who once showed such a hurry to push them into the fierce world of international cricket.

The Board should invest money in the right place. Money is like manure, it is good only when it is spread and I feel the Board should spend more on grooming youngsters than investing in someone like Geoff Marsh, who, I believe, was paid Rs. 25 lakhs for his three visits to India. I would like to know what have been the gains from Marsh's association with the Board.

The loss in Sri Lanka has certainly led to a debate regarding the standard of the Indian team. It is not bad if you ask me. The team must learn lessons from the loss. It is quality and not quantity that counts. The Board should look for quality, and not quantity. And that is what it should remember when it draws the list of players who would be offered the one-year contract. Only the deserving should find a place.