From the very first full match I watched on Doordarshan - India’s match against NewZealand in 1987’s Reliance World Cup - cricket has come a long way.
Then, the first ten overs would see runs in teens, or in a high scoring game perhaps, 30-odd. The last ten overs would go for 60-odd on a flat track. Fans of the chasing team would be gloomy if the target was between 240 and 275. Anything above 275-280 was a near-guaranteed winning score.
The mid-90s changed all of this. The first ten overs became the ‘rain runs like cats and dogs’ period (a period that made the ‘aggressive Srikkanth’ look like a nursery kid in front of the Jayasurya-Kaluwitharane gang). [There was an interesting light-hearted banter during an interview with Sunil Gavaskar and Srikkanth together, where the scoring speed was discussed. Srikkanth looked at ‘Sunny’ and said, “you remember we used to send messages to you to speed up”? Pat came the great master’s reply: “well, we used to send you messages to slow down a bit”!] The ‘Jaya/Kalu’-inspired show continued well into the 2000s with others following suit. Mark Greatbatch, for example latched on and crystalised as the ‘first 15-overs big bang strategy’. Sachin Tendulkar inaugurated this phenomenon for India in NewZealand with a 49-ball 82.
This was a break from the past, when a 10-over score would often read 22/1 or 18/2. On a good day at 33/0, purists would then sit back and relax with coffee in hand and say, ‘yeah, now that we have a start and 10 wickets in hand, 260 is possible!!!!!!! (sounds like from the 1800s)
In the new scheme of things, by the 20th over you wonder whether the team batting first would score 300+! In India’s case however, once Sehwag got out, that possibility mostly ended in a paltry 270-something. Commentators would then lament the nearly 35-45 “crucial” runs lost. But then, we had a certain engineer-turned cricketer (he rarely turned the ball), who with his ‘flippers’ bamboozled the best, or the turbanator with his finger-ball ensured victory many times.
Today, batsmen begin the slam-bang-dance in the very first over, and if at all, ends at the stroke of the 50th. In between, some 350-odd runs would be scored. Worse (or even better), the chasing team easily reaches the target with 20-something balls to spare!
Things are nearly no different in Tests, my favourite form of the game. Tests are a genuine test of one’s (apparent) greatness in skill, technique, adaptability, prowess and patience, often seen in the form of maturity, or the ability to handle ‘pressurised expectations’. Gone are the days when test matches would produce high 500s and 600s, and one of two hundreds per inning. After a prolonged lull of dull cricket in the five-day format, today, Tests are turning thrilling with a mix of high and low scores. Uninteresting ‘draws’ are seldom. Teams play to win rather than to ‘save’. In the process some win audaciously, and others lose the game having tried their best (mostly a failure of skill, determination and patience; sometimes the price paid for being over-confident [anything is possible… after all what is 280 in a 90-over day; what they fail to realise is, it’s a day 4 or 5, worn-out pitch], or immaturity).
Tracing India’s cricket story from the mid 80s to the present is as interesting as going through the evolution of the ‘Bond’ movies. As technique and physique improved, so did 007 and his trysts with the impossible.
So, my baptism into cricket’s fascinating world began with the captaincy of the great Kapil Dev. It continued through brief stints of Dilip Vengsarkar and K Srikkanth, wound around my favourite - Azhar - and drooped under the fantastic Sachin before settling for a while with the ‘chest barer’ Ganguly! After the tragedy of losing one of India’s greatest skippers to a wicked Greg Chappel, interest in cricket was sustained around ‘Mahi re’. And we now stand on the commentariat’s labelling of Kohli-ism as the definitive great.
Question is: Is Kohli’s team really the greatest India has ever had?
This is a painful exercise. But let’s try going through it. Dispassionately. But with a look at contextual backgrounds of the times. Sans data-crunching (which is today’s in-thing; Rahul Kanwal, the supposed Indian journalist discovered the bitter truth that data is not everything, when he questioned Sachin’s continuance in the team with a set of statistics he tried to throw at Srikkanth’s face during an interview. Srikkanth disdainfully trashed it, as he so often dealt with a bouncer on the field). But with a sense of realism.
Just to put the question and its possible answers in proper perspective, Australia - the greatest team for an incredibly long period of more than 20 of these 35 years (which started in 1987) - does not any longer have a claim to that title. Or, of its celebrated invincibility (it perhaps began to show signs of waning at Eden Gardens). The once formidable Windies who boasted Haynes, Greenidge, Richardson and Richards in the top four, and bowlers like Marshall, Patterson, Walsh, Bishop and Ambrose - for at least 10-12 years since 1987 - are only a pale shadow today. This, despite Holding trying to hold on, or Roach attempting to whistle past.
The power-packed Pakistanis who had the great Miandad, Imran Khan, Salim Malik and Ijaz Ahamed alongside Wasim, Waqar, Qadir, and were later blessed with the burly Inzamam, the firey Afridi, the classy Anwar and such talents like Mushtaq Ahmed and so on, today, have a team that resembles their distant cousins.
De-Silva and Ranatunga were mighty pillars around which Sri Lanka reached the pinnacle, not to forget the anchor in Mahanama, the exquisite Jayawardene and of course, wily (respectfully) Murali.
The Englishmen and the NewZealanders were always ‘bits-and-pieces’ men despite some great names in the English side. Perhaps Jimmie Anderson and Joe Root are at best, the only ones who could possibly compare with their illustrious past. Maybe a ‘Broad’ weighing can be done. But certainly, no junior Hadlee ever came along.
One must also not forget the nature of pitches across the world.
Even today, India in my opinion has just one good cricket pitch - at Mohali. Where the ball makes batsmen hop around (remember the ball from Walsh that shot through Manoj Prabhakar’s helmet grill and broke his nose?). I know of nearly no other pitch that consistently does this, and holds on for 5 days pretty well, or is fair even for spinners. Other pitches may do a trick or two if the mornings are misty, or if there is cloud cover; but that’s like a brief cloud burst. Many of the wickets in India are indeed just dustbowls (ref. Ahmedabad, 2021). Kanpur may be an exception. Remember Rajesh Chauhan? He used to get the ball turn nearly ‘square’!
Consider the quality of pitches. Even though I have not played a proper game of cricket, one doesn’t need that expertise in order to ‘feel’ the pitch at Perth and its metamorphosis into “slightly” friendlier for batsmen. No, its not about increased batting prowess or talent, and nor is it entirely about better bats!
See how pitches behave in the West Indies. And in NewZealand. And in England. Sadly, there’s been no way to understand the nature of pitches in Pakistan. But look at the beautiful batting carpets laid out in the UAE! I am not really sure if any change has happened, for better or worse in Sri Lanka.
So now, if we go back to the ‘80, ‘90, ‘00 and ‘10 eras where India fared against these teams (which were all gradually waning with the departure of ferocious competitors and so did the fab-four and Kumble!), we may be able to draw a fair picture of which was the better team, if at all there was one that qualified.
For one, today’s resources available (sponsors) for facilities (academies), focus on fitness levels, the progression in attitude, of Indian cricketers, have changed quite dramatically. Add to this, a relative sense of stability at the top of Indian teams from the time of Azhar (his captaincy was under question or on the line, as often as Laxman’s utility or Dravid’s ability to push the scoring was ridiculously debated). By the time Ganguly’s transformative leadership started to show determination, grit and success like ground-pepper visibly sprinkled on a pizza, longer durations of nearly unchallenged captains became the template. During Azhar and co. sports reporters wrote about the need to give captains a 2-year period. Today, that topic hardly ever comes up for a discussion.
Also, earlier, India was seen as the ‘nice boys’ who wouldn’t retaliate against or even react to sledging. They’d be happy to walk away, smiling (like Ajay Jadeja often did). Sachin was so gentle (it was so clearly evident when Ganguly started to put his foot down for players he believed in), he wouldn’t even speak up. Azhar was busy shrugging his shoulders and shaking his head and briskly walking around (as he used to say - letting things happen; or letting the “boys” do their job ). Less said the better about Kapil, Veng’kar or Srikkanth.
Ganguly changed all this. The day he famously made Steve Waugh wait for the toss. And when he bared his chest in full glare of ‘Lords’s sacred lawns. India started to believe (as at the Natwest finals) that victory could be secured, when at that time, all that was there to play for was ‘respectability’ in defeat (we were used to witnessing ‘hara-kiri’ so often, each game provided more skepticism than optimism about an Indian victory; remember the infamous 120-run chase in Bridgetown when India folded up for 81?; and of course the world cup semi-final where India went from 98/1 to 120/8 when the game had to be stopped?). That day when Yuvraj attacked and Mohd. Kaif milked and ran around confidently, was a key turning point, I believe, in India’s transformation from ‘meek tigers on paper’ to roaring lions on the field. This win was so important to prove to the world that the heroics of Kolkata was no fluke. Suddenly, the pains of many a past snatch of failure from victory’s jaws could be pardoned.
It is important to note that while Yuvraj and Kaif helped win at ‘Lords’, it was Dravid and Laxman all the way at Kolkata! Two different sections of the batting line up - early middle order (if there is one), and late middle order. In between these two lie Ganguly and Sachin. And Sachin was the pillar around which Indian cricket revolved for more than a dozen years by then. From “is Sachin still at the crease?”, we progressed to “Yuvi going great and Mahi to come”. From “and the man of today’s match is Sachin Tendulkar (and loud applause), to several names in different matches.
There was a time when there were back-to-back series against SriLanka. The great Murali and co deliberately bowled negative lines. Neither Azhar nor Sachin resorted to that, particularly during Tests. Matches would often become a dead draw.
McGrath would bowl miserly lines and yell or stare, even at Sachin! Wasim would target his razor-sharp eyes, and Waqar had his ‘toe-crushers’. Donald was not just lethal, but also intimidating! Later, Lee would steam in and then provoke. Racist slurs were common. In return, all India could manage, was Kiran More forcing Miandad to imitate him and get angry. More would immediately stand down, and ‘watch the act’ (World Cup 1992)!
All this has undergone a sea change. As the Indian economy looked up, started to expand and created a daring society, that has been reflected in our cricket as well. We are certainly more daring and determined. We don’t mind bringing T20 to the Test arena, and succeeding (Shardul Thakur)!
However, just who are today’s best batsmen who give bad dreams to bowlers [remember Tendulkar hitting Warne over his head in his dreams?] (apart from India)? Frankly, no more than Joe Root, Kane Williamson (he’s so gentle, isn’t he?) or Steve Smith, not to take anything away from the others.
The ‘80s had half a dozen West Indians and Australians apiece, and some legendary Pakistanis. The ‘90s added Sri Lankans and South Africans. This list continued to grow even in the 2000s when Brian Lara managed the WI scoreboard along with Carl Hooper, until the Gayle-storm arrived. In the meanwhile Chanderpaul ‘dug deep’ - (remember him marking his guard?).
Our bowlers are up against today’s crop of batsmen, who have better, friendlier pitches to bat on, better quality bats, and a certain 20/20-inspired aggression in batting where the rules have been re-written. But just how many have the class of those of the past?
(Consider this: When Umpire Steve Bucknor adjudged Sachin Tendulkar LBW to a ball that hit his helmet while trying to duck a short bouncer (a ridiculous appeal by McGrath), what if there was a DRS system in place (also for the many unfair decisions that went against many Indian batsmen)? Talk about aggression and attitude, but consider this: the 2000s also produced an unforgettable moment when sir-Kumble came out to bowl with a broken jaw!)
Bowlers of the ‘80’s and ‘90s. There was a far greater number of fearsome and great bowlers than today. The 2000s had some frightening names in pairs - Donald/Pollock, McGrath/Gillespie, Wasim/Waqar and Walsh/Ambrose to name a few. Apart from ol’ Jimmie or Bond, how many bowlers of today can compare against their ancestors?
Our batsmen, with increased courage and steely nerves face today’s bowlers aplomb, on friendlier wickets.
So, if I were to do an analogy of these 35 years, let me put it this way. It’s my own way of looking at it, and not a thrust.
The Batting Perspective:
The Kapil-V’kar-Srikkanth era would to me, look like losing both openers in quick succession, inside the first 4 or 5 overs (or before lunch on day 1). The Azhar-Sachin-Ganguly era, like the middle order who then worked hard, shouldering, ‘leaving’, nudging, and running the ones and twos, to stabilise. The Dhoni-Kohli era, like the late middle order that swings the bat and pushes the graph up steep. Are we now at a stage where we await the next in line to wag the tail (like how Kumble and Srinath brilliantly took India beyond the ropes in Bangalore)? Perhaps, towards the crown?
When Australia seemed invincible, much of the legendary bowlers across the cricketing world were also at their peak.
The Bowling Perspective:
The Kapil-V’kar-Srikkanth era was perhaps like frontline bowlers clobbered (in the first 15 overs), leaving the skipper shaking his head. Efficient spinners and middle over bowlers then took over and restricted the blazing guns and in fact, struck a couple of times to upset the momentum (of the batting side) - The Azhar-Sachin era. This left the door wide open for the 5th bowler (the Ganguly-Dhoni-Kohli era) to produce some quick breakthroughs, leaving the last 2-3 wickets for someone to scalp. Here, if the ‘middle over restrictions’ with one or two wickets didn’t occur, by now the game would have been over.
Again, when Australian bowlers could do no wrong, some of the greatest names in batting were at their peak.
From a batting perspective, is the stabilising effect of the ‘middle order’ worthy of any recognition? After all, if the middle order didn’t do the stabilising act, on what foundation would the late middle order have the freedom to swing the bat? By which time, the frontline bowlers may have tired out too. From the bowling perspective, how would the ‘middle over’ bowlers be seen? Without drying the runs up, creating pressure and forcing an error to scalp 2-3 important top order batsmen, would we have had a significant opening yet? A shot at the distant end of the tunnel?
Now, is there a ‘greatest’ team yet? Or, is it the ‘greatest’ team’s job to make look opposite bowlers and batsmen mere shadows of the past?