da supremo： The difference the absence of just one player can make
da jogodeouro： Partab Ramchand22-Jul-2001The difference the absence of just one player can make! If at all anyproof was required that the Indian team would greatly miss SachinTendulkar’s omnipotent presence, the first two matches in the Coca-Cola Cup in Colombo have proved it. The team just does not have thenecessary qualities needed to offset the advantage that Tendulkar’spresence gives it.Yes, one understands it is not easy for any team to recover from theabsence of a leading player, particularly one of Tendulkar’s sublimecapabilities. If anything is evident, it’s not just the batting buteven the bowling that has been weakened. But more than the batting,bowling or fielding, what has really hit the Indian team is the simplefact that Tendulkar is not around. His mere presence is enough to liftthe team’s morale.Mentally, the team has been hit and perhaps this has turned out to bethe most important factor. But it is true that Tendulkar’s absence hasalso led to a number of changes which may not augur well for the team.For starters, it was taken for granted that there had to be a newopening partner for Sourav Ganguly. But in the first two matchesitself, there have been two separate combinations tried out. AmayKhurasiya was chosen specifically as a replacement for Tendulkar,going by the statements made by the selection committee chairmanChandu Borde. But obviously the team management can’t seem to decideon the opening combination. Why has Yuvraj been pushed to open thebatting when his place is obviously in the middle order? And in theabsence of Tendulkar, should it not be imperative for Ganguly to openthe innings? And yet against Sri Lanka, Ganguly inexplicably droppedhimself down the order. Somehow Tendulkar’s absence has weakened notonly the top order but also the entire batting line-up. It has alsoled to a change in plans but the team is yet to hit upon a winningstrategy. They seemed to be going in for unnecessary desperatemeasures. Witness the needless tactic of sending Harbhajan Singh at No4 against Sri Lanka. It’s a confused team management out there inColombo.The bowling too looks thin in the absence of Tendulkar. His ODI careerfigures of 101 wickets at a strike rate of 56.4 with a best of fivefor 32 clearly illustrate Tendulkar’s value to the side both as onewho can curb the scoring as also his ability as a change bowler usedto break partnerships. And in the event of a leading bowler notplaying – like Ashish Nehra missing out the game against Sri Lanka -the Indian bowling really looked fragile. Against both New Zealand andSri Lanka, they let the opponents off the hook and on pitches thatwere helpful to bowlers. The batting, with the uncertainty at the topand the inexperience in the middle, really cries out for Tendulkar, asthe collapse in both the games clearly illustrates.The value of the bench strength in any side is vital if it is toovercome the sudden withdrawal of a prima donna. The Indian team justdoes not have the resources required to make good the absence of agiant like Tendulkar. That is the most obvious lesson driven home byevents in the first two matches in the Colombo competition.
