Let’s get something out of the way. The Indian Premier League isn’t the devil that it has been made out to be. Indian cricket has a bigger problem. If the Indian men’s cricket team hasn’t won any ICC tournament in a decade, then the problem lies elsewhere. Perhaps the team would do well to listen to its star all-rounder, Ravichandran Ashwin.
“This is an era where everybody is a colleague. Once upon a time, when cricket was played, all our teammates were friends. Now, they are colleagues. There’s a big difference because here, people are there to advance themselves and to stride ahead of another person sitting to your right or left,” Ashwin recently said in an interview to The Indian Express, following India’s defeat in the final of the World Test Championship against Australia at The Oval.
To dismiss Ashwin’s thoughts as those of someone excluded from the team for the final match would be a disservice not only to his commitment but also to the cricket fans who want nothing more than to witness India show results that match the amazing talent, hard work, and resources available to the team. Perhaps Sunil Gavaskar knows a thing or two about it, which is why he called it a “sad” thing. While Gavaskar was cautious, fans, and, more importantly, the team, needn’t be. For Indian cricket to shift gears from being the proverbial second best to reaching the pinnacle like the Australians of the 2000s, the players need to break away from the ‘colleague’ mentality and do what achievers do: play for each other.
Also read: Those attacking Shami post Pakistan loss are ‘spineless’ & ‘losers’, says Virat Kohli
Everyone’s on their own
It is anyone’s guess what goes around in the Indian dressing room. Over the past few years, while Indian cricket has broken the jinx of not winning overseas, they haven’t truly emerged as the indisputable favourites, unless they are in the West Indies playing Test matches against a T20 side. One remarkable feature about the team has been the individual focus on each player, analysing not only their performances but also their overall careers and value to the team after each innings. Contemporary politics has, of course, deflated the sense of ‘Team India’, replacing it with players’ religion, political affiliation, or their stance on any current topic.
More often than not, fans are left to pick sides, and it doesn’t help that two of India’s most prominent cricketers — Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma — are not exactly what one might call ‘friends’. We rarely see their off-field interactions, social media posts supporting or celebrating each other, or families meeting and ‘hanging out’. That fuels the Kohli vs Sharma camps to engage in verbal duels and create controversies that the cricketers are then left to comment upon in press conferences.
What must KL Rahul think when former cricketers publicly spar over his inclusion in the team, and the management or captain has nothing to say in his defence? Performance pressure and scrutiny are inevitable, but such scrutiny should not take the form of vindictive dissection of ethics or a player’s value to the team.
The same could be said about other team members as well. It seems that everyone is left to themselves. When players do take a stance, such as Kohli did when Mohammed Shami was attacked because of his religion, they open themselves to motivated attacks. This may discourage other team players from wading into charged situations, but the takeaway then is that every player is on his own. It’s something that has affected South African cricket, with discrimination against black players destroying some careers.
Also read: Before 2004 tour of Pakistan, Dalmiya gave players the option to skip. All declared available
Time to learn beyond cricket
English and Australian players exhibit a vastly different camaraderie, both on and off the field. It’s remarkable how both David Warner and Steve Smith have moved past the ball-tampering incident and the subsequent year-long ban. Their team members have stood by them, reaping the dividends of their success in the process.
Ben Stokes, the talisman of England men’s cricket, was also away from the team following a brawl at a pub in 2018, during which England lost the Ashes 0-4 to Australia. But here’s what Stokes had to say about the support he received: “You do [feel gratitude]. People say you’ve got your work colleagues and your friends. So you find out who [your friends] are in tough situations and members of this group have been unbelievable. I think if anyone is going through anything in the future I think it’d be exactly the same.” What followed was Stokes’ magical performances in the 2019 World Cup as well as that thrilling chase in the third Test of the drawn Ashes series.
Whether supporting a struggling player, offering encouragement, or defending teammates against criticism, they demonstrate solidarity and a sense of togetherness.
What is happening to the Indian team then? Why are its players not ‘friends’ who see no fear in standing up when crowds bully a ‘Muslim’ member of the team? Why are its players so far removed from the country’s social reality that a Yuvraj Singh can use a casteist slur against a Yuzvendra Chahal while “having a conversation with my friends” and both him and his ‘friend’ Rohit Sharma see no problem in laughing over it? Is it because, as against healthy and supportive, it is the senior-junior mentality that permeates the atmosphere in the dressing room and feeds the players’ ego?
The Indian cricket team has a lot to learn and improve when it comes to creating a more supportive and cohesive environment. While fans may have their preferences, the team members cannot be anything but united. That all-too popular word ‘intent’ can’t shield the Indian men’s cricket team from the developing sense that might become more clear and assured in the future—that there are no friends in the team anymore. Just colleagues. That would hurt Kohli-Siraj, but it would hurt fans and Indian cricket even more.
(Edited by Prashant)