By Ashis Ray, IANS
Manchester : Now that Venkatesh Prasad, who bowled India to victory over Pakistan here in the 1999 World Cup, has confirmed what was suspected for a while, Dilip Vengsarkar and his co-selectors need to reveal what prompted their recall of Munaf Patel for the one-day internationals (ODIs) against England.
Prasad, currently India’s bowling coach, indicated that Munaf’s bowling is lacking intensity. This can stem from either an absence of fitness or a lack of motivation. Prasad appears to think it’s the latter, though it’s hard to believe why a bowler shouldn’t be going flat out or lacking rhythm, if he is physically a hundred percent.
Is it a fear of failure that’s afflicting Munaf?
Prasad’s outburst amounts to a serious accusation, for it effectively translates to charging Munaf of not trying hard enough.
Munaf was a passenger on the tour of South Africa. He made a comeback in the World Cup, but without bowling at the pace he generated on his debut against England at home last year or in the West Indies soon after.
If Munaf feels he’s achieved enough, he’s completely misguided. A cricketer must first and foremost be deeply honoured to play for his country and give his best for it. He must also have utmost pride in his personal performance.
Since the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) have a ridiculous system of having honorary officials, they feel obliged to reward selectors with overseas junkets.
Vengsarkar visited South Africa late last year and was again in England during the recent Test series. According to his own admission, based on third party information he and his colleagues decided to recall Munaf, having only a couple of months earlier declared him to be unfit.
True, a chairman of selectors cannot be omnipresent and has to depend on inputs from others. But, did any of his colleagues, for instance, watch Munaf perform before he was reinstated?
In South Africa, Vengsarkar was convinced Munaf’s return would win India the third Test, after the hosts had levelled the series in the 2nd. Indeed, the Bahruch bowler was included in the playing XI for the Cape Town decider. But he could only be utilised sparingly because his brittleness relapsed.
After Ajit Agarkar’s abysmal showing in the first ODI in the current series at Southampton, Munaf was handed a lifeline to revive his career.
But neither at Bristol nor at Birmingham did Dravid dare to grant him his full quota of overs. He haemorrhaged runs alarmingly. Yet, he was in the last Champions Trophy and World Cup India’s most accurate bowler, who would capture wickets because of his nagging line and length.
Munaf, even before he played for India, had a history of injury problems.
What is it that makes Indian quicker bowlers passing wonders has never been explored, because the BCCI, arguably one of the worst cricket administrations in the world, does not have a structured to scientifically investigate such matters.
Ashish Nehra, India’s best bowler in the 2003 World Cup, appears to have disappeared into oblivion. Lakshmipathy Balaji, briefly the scourge of Pakistan, has faded likewise.
Win or lose, the Indian selectors must not encourage a batsman or bowler, who is not an adequate fielder, in a one-day squad. Such a policy is bound to pay off sooner rather than later.
A one-day side will inevitably trip up if they do not focus on fielding. The Indians beat South Africa at Belfast in spite of limited catching, fielding and throwing. They are pushing their luck if they are expecting this to persevere.