More »
Forget the impact a dominant team has on world cricket, including but not limited to killing of all competition, it is not in India's interests to become a dominant team.
Dominant teams have limited shelf lives. The West Indies ruled the roost for around 15 years, ditto for Australia. India's ambitions have to be bigger than that. India not only is the richest cricketing board in the world with the biggest fan following anywhere, it also is sitting on a reservoir of untapped talent. With each passing year, the IPL gives us a glimpse of what we have and and, in turn, shines a spot light on the domestic scene, exposing us to what we could potentially have.
Dominant teams leave behind a void that is difficult to fill. Teams used to winnings create a winning culture. But does that culture necessarily percolate down to the grass roots? Or, like the Romans, do people get so smug with their own success that they take thier eye off the ball, believing that things will take care of themselves? And what about the coming generation? We have already seen, in the Indian context, the numerous comparisons the newbies coming into the team have to deal with, vis a vis the senior members of the team. No one thinks it sacrilegious that a kid making his debut is compared with a veteran of over 150 tests as if it is the most natural thing to do. Now extrapolate this to a dominant team and imagine the multiplication in terms of pressure. Australia, with its numerous spinners who were tried and discarded post Warne, is a manifestation of just that - not only did the newbies have to be as good as Warne, they had to orchestrate wins out of nowhere, a la Warne. Its a pressure they could do without.
Being part of a dominant team makes it harder for players to leave, and for selectors to drop them. This is especially true towards the tail end of the dominance. The West Indian and Australian teams provide enough examples of this. Tough decisions are not made in the hope that prolonging careers may continue the dominance and/or overcome the dip in performance. Prolonged careers ensure that a whole bunch of otherwise deserved players never get a chance to break into the big league and end up becoming the lost generation. The gap between the team and their replacements becomes sufficiently large as the "lost generation" is lost to cricket. Assimilation into the team becomes harder as the generation gap increases and dominance becomes harder to sustain.
What does dominance achieve anyways? Bragging rights for a few years, an inflated sense of worth, followed by years of scorn and talk of comeuppance. On the other hand, longevity creates a system of sustained excellence. Coupled with the knowledge that the team is fallible, it keeps the team honest. It also allows for constant regeneration - the ambition being simple - win more than you lose.
India's aim has to be for creating a dynasty, not dominance.
I would much rather have a team that has to do the hard yards consistently and win over 5 days but wins more than it loses than a team that blows away the opposition in 3. And, mindful of what we were, what we are, and what we could potentially be, its not asking for much at all!
On why I don't want India to become a dominant team!
Dynasty - The Hallmark of Sporting Immortality
There are number ones and then there are Number Ones. Just ask Dinara Safina and Serena Williams. Almost every sport has a ranking system which is an indicator of the form team/athlete at a given point in time. However, it isn't always the best indicator of the pre-eminent force in that sport, and there are times when there is really isn't a pre-eminent force in the sport.
Brazil are the number one ranked football team in the world but they were knocked out in the quarterfinals of the 2006 FIFA World Cup. No European Club has won the Champions League in consecutive seasons. Dinara Safina was ranked number one for a few months this year but she hasn't won a single Grand Slam. Kim Clijsters had a similar ascent to the top of the rankings a few years ago. Since then she has added two Grand Slam titles to her resume, one of which came in her first Grand Slam since coming back from retirement.
Test Cricket is going through a similar period of flux. There are two legitimate contenders for the number one spot but there are compelling arguments for and against each of these contenders. But this post is not about me arguing the case for one of these contenders, it is about what it really means for a team to be the best in the business.
In India when we think of dynasties we think of the Mughals, we think of the Mauryas and Guptas who are part of our rich history. But this term is used quite commonly in the sporting world, especially in America. Dynasty is a term used to describe a team that has been the undisputed best in its sport for a prolonged period of time. It is what every sporting franchise aspires to but very few have the honour of achieving it.
Here's a look at some of the great sporting dynasties since the end of the Second World War. Their achievements might put into perspective what Indians and South Africans should aspire to in order to be remembered as the best instead of just a footnote in the ICC Rankings.
Real Madrid C.F - Football (1954 to 1969)
As a Barcelona supporter, it is doubly painful to acknowledge the superiority of the Castilians over the Catalans. But 12 La Liga titles and 6 European Cups, 5 of which came in a row are the stuff legends are made of. It's hardly a surprise then that the best footballers in the world dream of playing at the Bernabeu and not Old Trafford.
Boston Celtics - NBA (1957 to 1969)
11 NBA titles in 13 years. They say it's harder to defend your title than to win it for the first time. Well, how about defending it 7 times in a row? It still remains the longest championship winning streak of any professional franchise in America.
Ferrari - Formula One (1999 to 2004)
6 consecutive Constructors Championships, 5 consecutive Drivers Championships to Michael Schumacher. The FIA had to constantly tweak the rules in an effort to level the playing field but Ferrari came out on top every time.
West Indies - Cricket (1975 to 1995)
Arguably the most dominant team in the history of cricket. Unbeaten at home during this period, they also did not lose a test series in over 15 years until Australia conquered them in the Caribbean. Series record: 25 wins, 4 losses, 10 draws. Their dominance extended to One-Day internationals as well with the Windies winning the first two World Cups and losing the finals of the third one. Their fall from greatness could not have been worse, they are ranked 8th in the world right now and their past greats are hoping they have hit rock bottom.
Australia - Cricket (1995 to 2007)
The period of Australian dominance started with the fall of the Caribbean empire. Australia were initially a bit suspect away from home, they were even more dominant than the Windies in their own backyard. Series record: 37 wins, 5 losses, 3 draws. Australia dominated the shorter version even more than their predecessors, winning three consecutive World Cups. In fact, their winning streak in World Cup matches is 23 and counting. Their downfall started at one of their strongholds - Perth was considered to be their fortress and it was breached in early 2008 by India. Since then, the Aussies have lost of their 6 series and are placed third in the ICC Rankings.
