da dobrowin： Tactically speaking, the Prince of Kolkata has quitesome way to go before he can be mentioned in the same breath as thetwo nawabs of Hyderabad cricket, but that would not be entirely fairto him at this stage of his career.
V Ramnarayan06-Nov-2001It is comparison time again, and, by popular demand, I take up anevaluation of Sourav Ganguly’s performance as Indian captain, measuredagainst the standards set by my old Hyderabad seniors. One is MLJaisimha, arguably the most cerebral captain not to have led India.The other is MAK Pataudi, most charismatic of India’s captains, whoseadmirers outnumbered his detractors in the long run, but not before hewas administered a no-confidence vote by the chairman of selectors. Tohis credit, the former Nawab came back in style and nearly toppled themighty West Indies from their perch of superpower-dom.Some basic differences are obvious. Jaisimha was celebrated as abrilliant strategist and cricket guru, but he never experienced thepressure of leading India in Tests. Pataudi became captain underexceptional circumstances at the age of 21 and was spared being putunder the microscope for quite a while, his youth and pedigree bothshielding him from excessive criticism.
Tactically speaking, the Prince of Kolkata has quite some way togo before he can be mentioned in the same breath as the two nawabs ofHyderabad cricket, but that would not be entirely fair to him at thisstage of his career.
Equally important, by his own admission, he received much caringsupport from the senior cricketers he led. Besides, until he forged amatch-winning spin combination and gradually instilled enough selfbelief in his players for them to enter the arena with confidence,India was not expected to win anyway. True, the process had begununder Nari Contractor’s leadership, especially in the morale-boostingvictories over Ted Dexter’s England, but Pataudi it was who taught theIndians to enjoy their cricket without overlooking the need to possessthe competitive edge.It is open to speculation whether `Tiger’ Pataudi learnt some of thetricks of his trade from Jaisimha, his close friend and Ranji Trophyteammate. Similarities in approach were obvious, especially in theiruse of spinners in an attacking mode with the close-in fielding cordonthat they perfected. Where they differed was in their attitude tomedium-pace bowlers. While Jaisimha was a strong advocate of the roleof seam bowlers in slowing down the game as a defensive ploy, andsometimes as wicket-takers as well, Pataudi was impatient with India’scrop of new-ball bowlers, often bringing the spinners on in the firstfew minutes of a Test match.Tactically speaking, the Prince of Kolkata has quite some way to gobefore he can be mentioned in the same breath as the two nawabs ofHyderabad cricket, but that would not be entirely fair to him at thisstage of his career. If you consider Pataudi’s early record as captainin win-loss terms, it was nothing much to write home about, for allthe good his inspirational style did for team morale. It was inraising fielding standards to acceptable levels in the outfield andclose to the bat that he made a huge contribution. He also led theside from the front, with his courageous batsmanship against fastbowling.Ganguly has achieved some notoriety by sticking his neck out whiledemanding the inclusion of some players. It is a reflection of themedia glare of our times that every armchair selector in the countryknows the captain’s preferences. In Tiger’s days, the intrusion wasnot so all-pervasive, and the captain got his way most of the time.Rarely did anyone complain that India did not field her best elevenunder his stewardship. Nor was his own place ever under siege due topoor form, even during his final hurrah against Clive Lloyd’s men.Tiger Pataudi once told a TV interviewer that, though he always kepthis emotions under check on the field of play, he saw merit in thegreater spontaneity of today’s cricketers. The consequences of hisrecent on-field aggression suggest that poor Ganguly would be betteroff imitating the Pataudi model of decorum!