The nadir of India cricket has been attained through design

 When the sporting world was looking to return as close to the normal as possible in mid-2020, England, West Indies and Pakistan resorted to playing Test cricket in England. The Indian cricket authorities were going back to the drawing board again and again to re-schedule the T20 tamasha that is central to their scheme of things. After two months of T20 cricket they landed in Australia for first limited-overs and then Test cricket. But when your top players face each other in T20 cricket alone, how can you expect the Test team to do well? As if the Indian Premier League (IPL) was not enough, the 2020-21 domestic season has only one contest - the Syed Mushtaq Ali T20 tournament. There is no word on Ranji Trophy. So when England arrive in India for a four-Test series in February 2021, India's Test specialists would have only played T20 cricket at home because auction of more players for new teams in IPL 2021 is the Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI)'s sole goal.  

Hence the 36 ka aankda as it is being called is indeed what it is. The BCCI seems to be having a 36 ka aankda with Test cricket. When it is hell-bent on promoting T20 cricket why should Test cricket results be any good. In fact now they are so poor that you could stop expecting the Indian Test team to get up; forget fight.  

The Test specialists had enough acclimatization in Australian conditions thanks to the 14-day quarantine rule.  All of them had a very good feel of the pitches having played 50 / 20 over internationals as well as two three-day warm-up matches. But those who were in form, like Rahul, Gill and Pant were left out of the squad. Pandya was not retained for the Test series. Shaw has hung himself with the long rope that he was given. And now that Kohli is going back and Rohit cannot play till the third Test. Shami too is likely to return home following a body blow. So as in so many previous overseas tours, the Indian team will go through the motions in the rest of the Test series.

When the Lodha panel suggested some tough but necessary reforms, the powers-that-be in the BCCI corridors shot them down. The BCCI has a 38-team Ranji Trophy with too many weak teams giving players not the right competition. Top players anyways do not play Ranji Trophy, which robs younger players of the opportunity of competing against the best. Virat Kohli last played for Delhi in November 2013. Others use it for match practice more than anything else. The zonal teams, with the best of the best from the state teams, that would compete in Duleep Trophy no longer exist. 

In short the cricketing ecosystem in India is in shambles as far as Test cricket is concerned. The vision seems to have been engineered to perfection.

Post Script:

19th of December will go down in Indian cricket history as a marquee date. In 2020, if it was the lowest ever Test score (36), in 2016 India had scored its highest ever score - 759/7 declared against England at Chennai. India's top scorer - Karun Nair (303 not out) played four more Tests and despite being in the original Test squad in England, was overlooked to accommodate Hanuma Vihari who had flown in as a replacement. Vihari hasn't done anything spectacular either. Another potential Test player being ignored is Sarfaraz Khan of Mumbai.      

    

Does being humble and simple work?

There is universal respect and even admiration for those who are humble and simple by nature, and who have absolute confidence in all human beings irrespective of their social status...It is such good men and women who are the hope of the world. 

These are words of Nelson Mandela in 'Conversations with Myself'. 

The moot point is - does being humble and simple work in the real-world? 

When we look around us, our leaders, be it in the corporate or political or even the social world are all self-advertising braggers. If they don't go over the top, we refuse to see them. That is largely because of the huge congestion in the social media space. Every one is out on some digital platform telling the world what they had for brunch or what they have created. Visibility is so easily available. 

But are these leaders being humble and simple? Let us for once assume they are simple, but definitely not humble. Or is it the new normal? In the corporate world, leaders who are authoritative have been valued since times immemorial. If the leader isn't decisive or does not appear decisive or confident how is s/he expected to instill confidence in the team? However majority of the leaders are tentative. They ask questions that give out their nervousness. The smart ones have mastered the art of masking their nervousness by being aggressive as a cover. And such leaders flourish and flounder. They flounder as they hurtle from one crisis to another before exposing themselves for good. 

Asking questions is a good trait provided leaders are ready to listen to sane advice from the team members. However both the authoritative as well as the nervous leader abhor advice from lower levels lest they are perceived weak.

This brings us back to where we started.

To be continued....with inputs from readers please.