India is touring South Africa for three tests, six ODIs and three T20 internationals. This is the twenty fifth year and we are yet to win a test series in South Africa. Having toured the country so many times, you would think that we would have learnt a fair bit.
Never has an Indian team went to South Africa so unprepared. India has always had tour matches before the test matches. In the modern world of lots of cricket, teams even adopt a policy of less tour games. Alternatively, they prepare extensively at home in conditions tailormade for challenges they will face in foreign lands on artificial pitches with bowling machines and throw in. In addition to that, they tour nearby countries. England tours Bangladesh, for example, before coming to India to acclimitise. Even South Africa, the home country, played versus Zimbabwe as a means to get prepared for the matches ahead versus India.
India never felt the need for the same. For BCCI, matches versus Sri Lanka at home and away a million times a year makes more sense. Virat Kohli, the Indian test captain, pointed out that ideally they require a month to prepare for such a tour. Here, in Kohli's own words, in two days after the Sri Lankan tour ended, they were to fly to South Africa.
Is it a wonder then that India slumped to 92 runs for the lost of 7 wickets in 41.4 overs facing a real danger of being bowled out below 100 and before facing even 50 overs? Had it not been for Pandya's raw talent, India would have been in a terrible situation. Who do we blame? The cricketers for not having the time to adjust to the bouncier, more seaming wickets, or the BCCI, for not putting cricket first?
If India loses the first test, some how draws the second and goes on to win the third, would it not have been an opportunity missed to win the first series in South Africa in 25 years merely due to the lack of foresight of the people holding office at BCCI? Maybe some one can give a detailed explanation why the matches with Sri Lanka were very important financially. Why can't the BCCI, the richest board in all of cricket, put cricket first, just for a change?
Never has an Indian team went to South Africa so unprepared. India has always had tour matches before the test matches. In the modern world of lots of cricket, teams even adopt a policy of less tour games. Alternatively, they prepare extensively at home in conditions tailormade for challenges they will face in foreign lands on artificial pitches with bowling machines and throw in. In addition to that, they tour nearby countries. England tours Bangladesh, for example, before coming to India to acclimitise. Even South Africa, the home country, played versus Zimbabwe as a means to get prepared for the matches ahead versus India.
India never felt the need for the same. For BCCI, matches versus Sri Lanka at home and away a million times a year makes more sense. Virat Kohli, the Indian test captain, pointed out that ideally they require a month to prepare for such a tour. Here, in Kohli's own words, in two days after the Sri Lankan tour ended, they were to fly to South Africa.
Is it a wonder then that India slumped to 92 runs for the lost of 7 wickets in 41.4 overs facing a real danger of being bowled out below 100 and before facing even 50 overs? Had it not been for Pandya's raw talent, India would have been in a terrible situation. Who do we blame? The cricketers for not having the time to adjust to the bouncier, more seaming wickets, or the BCCI, for not putting cricket first?
If India loses the first test, some how draws the second and goes on to win the third, would it not have been an opportunity missed to win the first series in South Africa in 25 years merely due to the lack of foresight of the people holding office at BCCI? Maybe some one can give a detailed explanation why the matches with Sri Lanka were very important financially. Why can't the BCCI, the richest board in all of cricket, put cricket first, just for a change?
