Women's World Cup deserves better than fixture farce

Preparations for the tenth Women’s Cricket World Cup in India have descended into farce, following a BCCI decision to make late changes to the schedule. Just a week before the opening matches new venues have not yet been announced to replace Mumbai’s Wankhede Stadium and MIG Club Ground. As well as undoubtedly affecting the teams as they prepare for a tournament set to be more competitive than any previous ICC women’s event, there is also a great deal of uncertainty for broadcasters. Test Match Special will be broadcasting all of England’s matches live for the first time, and the Wankhede was the scheduled venue for the marquee televised games during the first week. There must now be some question marks over whether the matches will be televised at all.

And the reasons for switching the venues are highly questionable. The Wankhede Stadium is being taken out of use primarily to allow Mumbai to use it for the Ranji Trophy final. Whilst its possible that crowds will flock in to see Sachin Tendulkar playing first-class cricket in his home city for quite possibly the last time, an ICC event which has been in the schedule for years should surely take precedence. Admittedly, the Wankhede was not an ideal venue to be chosen in the first place: for this tournament it would have been best to choose smaller venues which see less cricket, and where attendances might be higher. Meanwhile, there is little sense in the decision to prevent the Pakistan team playing in certain cities. Less than a month ago their male counterparts toured India with no trouble: now it seems that a few unhelpful protestors are being allowed to stop a Pakistani team going to Mumbai.

This uncertainty really isn’t good enough for a global event being hosted in a cricket mad country. In light of recent political developments in India, where the gang rape and murder of a student in Delhi led to mass protests against Indian attitudes towards women, this tournament should have been a perfect opportunity to demonstrate what women can do. The standard of women’s cricket is constantly improving, and on the basis of recent results this will also be the most competitive women’s event in years. England and Australia will as ever go in as favourites, but England haven’t always  been successful in Asia, and Australia’s recent series with New Zealand was close fought. The hosts must also have a chance, possessing Mithali Raj, one of the world’s leading female batters. With her classical style Raj has struggled to make an impact in Twenty20 events, but is one of the most prized wickets in ODIs.

Some people are likely to dismiss the women’s game as a low quality irrelevance amongst the big-hitters of the IPL and the male international game. Of course, it is indisputable that the quality is not the same as in the men’s game. But that shouldn’t stop people from watching and enjoying it. As a prime example of how sport which isn’t elite male sport can be enjoyed, just look at the London Paralympics last summer. After nervously looking in for the first couple of days, people quickly started seeing what the athletes could do rather than what they couldn’t. Whilst the Olympics were always likely to go well, the Paralympics were the success story of the summer, transforming perceptions of both disabled sport and disability in general. The same attitude should be taken towards women’s cricket. Whilst no female player can yet hit the ball like a Chris Gayle or MS Dhoni, or bowl as fast as Dale Steyn, that doesn’t mean that their skills are necessarily any less worth watching. Lydia Greenway fields as well as just about any player (male or female) in the world, Sarah Taylor’s batting is beautiful to watch, and a lot of the spinners on show could teach a few male cricketers a thing or two.

I do believe that this tournament could yet be a big success. If the Indian public can be galvanised to turn out at least for the matches in which the host team is playing it will make the tournament feel like an event - there must be little more annoying for international performers than playing in echoey stadiums in their home country. Meanwhile, with little major international cricket scheduled over the next few weeks the cricketing media, at least in England, are likely to give the tournament some column space. But at the moment the administrators are allowing the female game’s showpiece occasion to turn to farce. The players and supporters deserve better than that.

Too much rest for the wicked?

Over the last two days we have witnessed two Twenty20 Internationals. First, India beat England at the new ground in Pune on Friday evening, before tonight South Africa hammered New Zealand in Durban. Only one of the four teams involved was fielding anything remotely resembling a first choice XI, and even that wasn’t quite full strength. The prime reason for this is decisions taken by team managements to rest players, a practice which has become exponentially more popular over the last year. The rested list for just these two games would make a world-beating team of its own:

Virender Sehwag, Hashim Amla, Jacques Kallis, Kevin Pietersen, AB de Villiers (wk), Albie Morkel, Graeme Swann, Morne Morkel, Steven Finn, James Anderson, Lonwabo Tsotsobe

In addition to this lot New Zealand were missing a player refusing to tour because of issues with the hierarchy (Ross Taylor), and a player not picked because the hierarchy have issues with him (Jesse Ryder). Meanwhile, England captain Stuart Broad was on a lengthy injury list.

And its not just the shortest form of the game that is afflicted by this trend. England will return to India for ODIs in January without at least three first-choice players, and South Africa and Australia have also taken their best players out of action in recent 50-over matches.

Although players have been taking the odd tour game or domestic match off for years, it was Australia that pioneered resting players from full internationals. When at their mid-2000s zenith the policy kept McGrath and Warne fresh, whilst handing richly deserved international caps to the likes of Martin Love, Andy Bichel and Stuart MacGill.

It is still Australia that perhaps lead the way with their rest policy which, in the case of their quick bowlers, often verges on rotation. The key difference is that it would appear that they don’t have a set first-choice attack. Instead, they have a pre-conceived idea that bowler x will be withdrawn after a couple of Tests, to be replaced by bowler y. I think that this is proving dangerous, both for performance and for fitness. As I will come on to, resting is a good thing in moderation. But when somebody isn’t allowed to get a good amount of overs under their belt, they find themselves unprepared for the strains of playing Test cricket, where you have to push yourself for that final spell after a long day in the field. Pat Cummins and James Pattinson are both arguably victims of this policy.

That is not to say that resting players is a bad thing per se. With the amount of cricket that is now played everybody involved with the game, whether they be batsmen, bowlers, coaches or even mere punters need a break from time to time. The risk of injury and burnout ahead of the most important Test series is an unnecessary gamble to take on the very best players. It is, however, a little frustrating when people to buy pricey tickets on the premise that they will see the best players in the world in action, only to see virtual B-teams take to the field. It also takes matches out of their wider context, as whoever loses can always make the excuse that they weren’t at full strength.

So, resting must be a good thing in moderation. But too much of it can not only devalue international matches but also leave young players in particular undercooked. It is the job of team managements to ensure that they strike the perfect balance between rest and play so as that their greatest assets are fit and firing at the pivotal moments.

Test attendances in decline? Maybe, but not for lack of interest

In recent years many thousands of column inches have been filled by writers bemoaning declining attendances for Test cricket worldwide, and on that basis hypothesising about the impending death of the format. In this article I will attempt to explain why Test audiences vary so much. I will also argue that the chances of Test cricket ending any time soon is about as high as that of the Mayan prophecy being proved correct, and that there are in fact many reasons to be positive about continuing interest in the oldest form of the game.

So, what exactly is the current situation? The common conviction is that whilst grounds remain full in England and Australia, crowds are in serious and potentially terminal decline elsewhere.

The first part of that statement is largely true: most Tests in England still sell out, and large audiences are also common in Australia (although the current Test in Hobart is not a great example of that). One reason for this is that matches are played at a relatively small number of grounds, most of which have long traditions of hosting annual Test Matches. People get into the habit of buying tickets for a day of their local Test each year, and so there is less impetus to attract supporters who haven’t come along in the past. This filters down to younger generations, who first get taken along by their parents and then take on the ritual themselves. A second reason is that cricket supporters in these two countries perhaps have more flexibility to take days off work to watch the cricket than their Asian or West Indian counterparts, allowing grounds to be full on weekdays. Finally, scheduling is good on the whole, with a lot of Test Matches over the holiday season and weekends.

Those Tests which struggle to draw crowds in England and Australia are largely exceptions which prove the rule. Grounds like the Swalec Stadium, the Rose Bowl and to a lesser extent Bellerive Oval have a lesser Test Match tradition than Lord’s, Old Trafford and the SCG. Matches at these venues have also often been played off peak, and against less attractive opposition. Consequently, attendances are lower with weather less conducive to cricket-watching and people more likely to have to work. So, yes, Test attendances do remain good in Test cricket’s two most ancient dominions.

But what about elsewhere? The logical place to start is India, where a diet of limited-overs cricket has supposedly taken over, resulting in a significant in interest in Tests. I would contest this thesis. Interestingly, attendances remain highest where Tests have long been played – good numbers turned out for the recent matches at Mumbai and Kolkata, and Bengaluru also does well. Although we might not have the 100,000 that would watch at Eden Gardens twenty years ago, this can easily be explained by massive changes to Indian society. Back then going to the match was the only reasonable way for the then vast majority of poverty-stricken Indians to follow the cricket without waiting for the paper the next morning. Now, with the Internet, satellite television and an increase in wealth, less people feel the need to make the effort of spending a day at the cricket. A sufficient number still do though, particularly when England, Australia or Pakistan are in town. Despite not quite half-filling Eden Gardens, the crowd for last week’s Test would almost certainly have filled Lord’s and was almost certainly the highest in terms of total number of spectators for any Test Match in 2012. In line with the pattern identified in England and Australia, the worst crowds are at grounds in areas with no Test Match tradition – Nagpur and Mohali are key examples, both located some distance from large population areas and both experiencing large numbers of empty seats for Tests. In the recent past the BCCI have also often done themselves few favours, scheduling Tests to run Monday to Friday on some occasions, and thus robbing themselves of the days when most people attend.

The link to limited-overs cricket is worth examining in more depth. Although Indians undoubtedly have a greater love for the short formats than English fans do, it is worth considering that attendances for a Test are spread over five days. This is a simple fact which is often forgotten when commentators attempt to compare turnout for one-off ODIs and Twenty20 Internationals with attendances for individual days of a Test. The same spectator is unlikely to go to more than one day of a Test, so its surely logical that for an ODI, where all spectators have to attend at the same time, the crowd on that one day will be higher than for any individual day of Test cricket. In fact, this is far from being purely the Asian phenomena that people think it is. Even in England ODIs almost always sell out despite the perceived preference for Tests.

The pattern in Sri Lanka, West Indies and Bangladesh (a lack of recent home matches mean I’ve left out Pakistan, but they’d probably be in this group) is closest to that in India. It is in these countries and New Zealand where Test attendances are most embarrassing. However, in none of these were huge daily crowds commonplace at any point in the recent past. Economic constraints on supporters are probably the main issue here – in the West Indies, attendances are regularly considerably higher at weekends and on public holidays. But new stadiums built away from town also unsurprisingly do badly, such as the Sir Vivian Richards ground in Antigua and Hambantota in Sri Lanka. It should also be noted that even one-day matches don’t usually produce anything like a full house in these nations, so radical ideas like day-night Tests are unlikely to make a marked difference, particularly once the novelty wears off.

South Africa and New Zealand are outliers. New Zealand’s pitifully poor crowds are best explained by a pure lack of interest in the national team in a rugby mad country. It is here, more than anywhere, that you feel day-night Tests could actually make a difference. South Africa is more confusing. Their crowds are rarely as strong as England’s and Australia’s despite a good team, the popularity of cricket, and their grounds have hosted Tests for years. A potential explanation is that the Test-hosting tradition was interrupted by Apartheid, after which limited-overs cricket established itself as the fashionable format to take the family to. Economic factors may also play a part. But, overall, they also could do better.

We’ve established that crowds in England and Australia are better than elsewhere, and offered some explanations for the perceived decline. I’ll now turn my attention to why I think Test cricket has a bright future everywhere, with the possible exception of New Zealand.

Whilst the multitude of ways to follow Tests in the 21^st Century, now including Cricinfo, Twitter, Satellite TV, Digital Radio and iPhone apps might be playing a part in keeping some people away from the ground, it can only be increasing interest in the game. Some years ago most England overseas tours were given only minimal coverage, and hence received little public attention. These days we can follow them as closely as we can home Test series. I have no reason to believe that this is not the case in India and also elsewhere. One observation of mine is that many of the micro-bloggers moaning about a lack of support for Test Matches won’t attend a Test Match themselves each year, despite following the format extremely closely. I’m willing to bet that they would have done twenty years ago.

Things can be further improved. This could be done by ensuring that every Test Match includes guaranteed play at the weekend, and so starts no earlier in the week than Thursday, with the exception of matches played over holidays. In addition, Test cricket should be kept away from big grounds with no Test Match tradition. Nagpur and Mohali should thus be consigned to one-day matches. This shouldn’t mean that Tests should exclusively be played where they always have been, but new grounds should be carefully picked and not be so big that they always appear half-full or worse.

Overall, I firmly believe that Test cricket has a bright future. Any perceived decline in attendances has been exaggerated, and should not necessarily be equated with declining interest in the longest form of the game. On the contrary, I believe that Tests are being followed by more people than ever before, and that this trend is unlikely to stop soon.

Time to hang up the sunglasses

The appointment of Duncan Fletcher as India’s coach following Gary Kirsten’s decision to return to South Africa after the 2011 World Cup success seemed strange at the time. And now, eighteen months and nine Test defeats later, it appears even more misguided. With the team having got worse rather than better under his watch, it is surely time to hang up his sunglasses, or else they could soon descent into freefall.

Quite what attracted India to Fletcher is unclear. Yes, he did a good job with England, and led the team to some landmark successes. But however good his record with England was, he just seemed unsuited to the Indian job from the outset. Nasser Hussain has said that Fletcher’s greatest skills with England were ‘planning’ and ‘man-management’. Neither would seem to be key attributes for the role in India: planning is in the hands of N. Srinivasan and the BCCI whilst those, such as Greg Chappell, that have tried to man-manage India’s superstars have found that that it’s the wrong way to approach things. Fletcher was also well passed 60 when given the Indian job, and it can be argued that he belongs to an earlier school of world-class coaches than current masters like Kirsten and Andy Flower.

Whilst Kirsten and in particular Flower would appear to have a say in every significant decision that needs making, its also very difficult to tell quite what Fletcher’s done since taking charge. His press conferences with England were often caricatured as dour and uninteresting. But at least he gave them. Since taking the job he has hardly faced the Indian media; fielding coach Trevor Penney was left to take the questions after Day 2 in Kolkata. Whilst Penney’s answers might have been more interesting, Fletcher’s absence raises questions of whether he’s willing to hold himself accountable for the team’s failings. Even were he not actually to blame, a strong leader would take it upon himself to not only take his share of the responsibility, but also to ensure that changes are made to put things right.

And it’s a reticence to change things which is perhaps been Fletcher’s greatest weakness in his time at the helm. After seeing the team annihilated twice in quick succession away from home, something needed to be altered. Perhaps in personnel – it strikes me as ridiculous that Ajinkya Rahane, a 24 year-old with a first-class average of 64 is yet to make his debut. But more pertinently in attitude. A hallmark of the whitewash in England was that Indian heads dropped early, leading to some woeful fielding and village bowling. At the time they at least had an excuse for fielding, but with Dravid and Laxman gone the average age is now significantly lower, and the same problems persist. Whilst Cook and Trott were going about their business, the Indian bowlers rarely looked like breaking through – and when they did they dropped the catches. A properly motivated team keeps going hard through the tough patches. Fletcher must be held accountable for these failings in part.

Furthermore, mistakes Duncan made with England are being repeated. When England went to Australia in 2006/07, Andrew Flintoff (as captain), Ashley Giles and Geraint Jones were all picked for the 1^st Test despite having either hardly played, in the first two cases, or lost form completely in the third case. Fletcher’s India are doing the same thing. Given the depth of talent in the Indian domestic game, particularly in the batting department, it is near impossible to justify the selections for this series of Gautam Gambhir (who last reached three figures almost three whole years ago) and Yuvraj Singh (who was not first pick before his cancer battle, and had played two first-class matches since). That Gambhir has since found some form is neither here nor there – he shouldn’t have been in the team. Meanwhile, Harbhajan Singh had done nothing in the Ranji Trophy or his stint with Essex last summer to earn a recall. Rahane, Manoj Tiwary, Rohit Sharma and Ravindra Jadeja are just a few of those left on the sidelines while the pampered one-time, and often one-day, heroes add to their cap tally. It would be wrong to lay the blame for this entirely at Fletcher’s door. But a good coach should surely have enough influence to get the XI he wants from the selectors.

A tour of South Africa awaits next winter, and without change a full house of overseas whitewashes against Test cricket’s big three is on the cards. Relying on a strong home record, which is itself in the process of collapsing, is simply not good enough. What India need is a coach who can deal with the media, take the lead in team selection and strategy, and instil belief in a team in transition. With Flower committed to England, that man could be Tom Moody. Moody was a well-received coach of Sri Lanka, perhaps the next most difficult job in the world game after the Indian one. His work in the media means he’s be sure to appear at press conferences, and he understands the game better than most.

So, this writer thinks its time for Fletcher to go. He served England well on the whole, and will forever be associated with the introduction of central contracts, and a bigger coaching staff. He will also be remember as the Ashes winning coach of 2005. But his spell with India has been one long nightmare, which he desperately needs to wake up from.

No need for new era as England go to India with cause for optimism

In less than two days time England embark on the next stage of their quest to win a Test series in Asia, led by a new captain in Alastair Cook, but otherwise with largely the same personnel that went to the UAE and Sri Lanka last winter. Expectations are low, but on the face of it there should be little reason to believe that England cannot win a first series in India since 1985.

In some quarters the tour has been described as the beginning of a new era for English cricket, but in reality the switch in leadership was all about continuity rather than change. Cook has been groomed for captaincy since he first stepped into an England dressing room seven years ago, has been one-day international captain for eighteen months, and this is not even the first Test tour to the sub-continent that he’s led - he stood in for Andrew Strauss in Bangladesh, and by all accounts did an excellent job. Therefore, a change in team ethos is highly unlikely and rightly so: under Strauss England became a highly professional and effective outfit, guided by a world leading team of support staff. Expect Cook’s first target to be to ensure that this is replicated under his command.

The make up of the team will also have a familiar look to it when it is named after the toss in Ahmedabad on Thursday. The enforced replacement of Strauss with Nick Compton, and the inclusion of Stuart Broad (who was injured last spring) in place of the now crocked Steven Finn are likely to be the only two changes from the 2^nd Test in Sri Lanka, a match which England won. That reflects the fact that despite an unconvincing twelve months, there can be little dispute over who England’s best players are. The batting unit may have failed in the sub-continent last winter, but to my mind Cook, Jonathan Trott, Ian Bell and, yes, Kevin Pietersen are world class batsmen, each of whom has shown ability to play spin in the past. Cook and Trott have had success in Asia before, Pietersen has smashed Warne and Murali to all parts, and Bell has scored runs in matches played on turning pitches, albeit rarely in Asia. Matt Prior is undoubtedly the best ‘keeper-batsman in the world game. Meanwhile, a disappointing effort against South Africa aside, James Anderson and Stuart Broad have formed an incisive new ball partnership in recent years.  Tim Bresnan lost form this summer, but all the evidence from the tour games suggests he’s back in the sort of rhythm which has provided him with success against India in the past.

Nevertheless, we should not kid ourselves that this will be easy. Few teams have won Test series in India within the last decade, and all batsmen that have faced Ravichandran Ashwin in Asia have struggled thus far. It is likely that he’ll take the new ball, ensuring that England’s batsmen are put under pressure from ball one, and unable to take advantage of getting set against the seamers, as is their preference. Pragyan Ojha is also a better left-arm spinner than he’s often given credit for. These are not spinners that England can expect to bully, as they did to Harbhajan Singh and Amit Mishra in England. But it is surely not asking too much to expect top class international players, as so many of the England line-up are, to play sensibly and effectively against slow bowling.

The Indian batting line-up will present England with both hope and fear. It is hard to argue that this top seven is any stronger than the group which failed to top 300 more than once against these same England bowlers a short time ago, and Anderson, Broad and Bresnan will feel they have a mental edge over Virender Sehwag, Gautam Gambhir and Yuvraj Singh. Gambhir, in particular, would appear to have major technical issues against the moving ball - an issue for an opening batsman. However, India’s line-up like their home comforts, and Virat Kohli is in as good a form as Amla was when England came across him in the summer. Unsurprisingly India play spin particularly well, potentially negating the effectiveness of Graeme Swann and Samit Patel.

So to the question of what England need to do differently from their sub-standard efforts over the last twelve months. Firstly, they need to take their catches - near perfect fielding was a hallmark of the team in 2010 and 2011, but that seemed to slip last year. Secondly, they must make sure they don’t panic against spin - there is no reason why any of the batsmen ought to be technically incapable of playing slow bowling so a better mental approach should do the trick. Finally, with the ball they need to finish teams off: crucial lower order runs stopped them getting away with some shaky batting efforts last year. Do all three of these things well and a series win is well within England’s reach.

Overall, England should not be daunted by this series. They are playing an opponent that suffered a 4-0 reversal at their hands last time round, and it is difficult to see how India are a better team than they were then. Dealing with the Indian spinners is a tough task for any batsman, but there is no reason why England’s line-up should not be up to the challenge technically. Therefore, if Alastair Cook’s team are able to win the mental war and replicate the professionalism demonstrated in 2010 and 2011, they stand a good chance of confounding the predictions and defending the Pataudi Trophy. It won’t be easy but its certainly not impossible.

Rahul Dravid - India's great fortress and cricket's modern statesman

Rahul Dravid’s mold of cricketer – somebody with unrelenting patience, a fine defensive technique and a gentlemanly manner portending respect for his opponents, the laws and the history of the game – was supposed to have become obsolete in the 1980s. When the cavalier approach taken by Ian Botham, Viv Richards and his namesake Barry delighted crowds around the world, purists feared that a Gavaskar-like defensive technique would not be seen again; nor somebody with the patience of Boycott or the outlook of Brian Statham. But Dravid encompassed all three of these, whilst at the same time surpassing many of the records that were in place when his international career began in 1996. Perhaps fittingly, statistically as well as in the minds of many cricket-lovers, he remains in the shadow of his long-time friend and fellow middle-order run machine Sachin Tendulkar. But he is, at least until Ricky Ponting scores another 89 runs, the second most prolific run scorer in the 2,035-match history of the ultimate form of the game.

In years to come it is likely that commentators will see Dravid’s run-tally as flattering him – his name will not roll off the tongue, as those of some of his contemporaries will. Yet his services to the Indian team over a 164 match career are arguably unrivalled even by the two Little Masters (Gavaskar and Tendulkar) and the legendary all-rounder Kapil Dev. This commitment to the greater cause was evident at opposing ends of his career. On debut, batting in an unfamiliar position at number seven and within the imposing surrounds of Lord’s – cricket’s greatest pilgrimage site – mere mortals would have folded under pressure and looked on as their side slipped to defeat. However, Dravid produced a typically fighting innings of 95 from 363 deliveries, to steer his team into a position which eventually resulted in a drawn game and, were it not for the weather, could have contributed to a series-defining win. Friday’s press conference confirming his retirement again re-affirmed that in Dravid’s mind the team comes before personal glory. He told the media how now, rather than a year or two down the line when he could still conceivably be scoring Test hundreds, was the right time to retire because “it is time for a new generation of young players to make their own history and take the Indian cricket team even further”. This attitude could be a key factor in ensuring that the slump endured by India on their last two tours does not become an extended one. 

Dravid the batsman has long been nicknamed ‘The Wall’. But a fortress is perhaps more appropriate to fully illustrate the task opposition bowlers had to break through. Yes, in a bizarre statistical quirk he was bowled more times than any other Test cricketer but there were many occasions when he blunted even the sharpest bowling attacks. VVS Laxman will forever be associated with India’s miraculous comeback following-on against McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and Kasprowicz at Calcutta in 2001, but Dravid’s chanceless 180 was every bit as important in shaping the game in the home team’s favour. And he again united with Laxman at Adelaide three years later as he scored 305 runs in the match and his team secured a rare win in Australia’s backyard. Dravid also stood tall on a number of occasions when his teammates did not – a true sign of greatness. He was head and shoulders above everybody else in making twin fifties on a pitch described as a minefield at Sabina Park in 2006, and was simply magnificent in England last summer. His three hundreds were the only centuries scored by the tourists in the Test series and came against a bowling attack regarded as one of the best, if not the very best, around. He also had to cope with being shuffled up to open the batting at various times but didn’t let this have any effect on his game as he accumulated runs in the same manner he had for the previous fifteen years and added a further 965 deliveries to a world record number of balls faced in Tests.

Dravid’s other entry into Wisden’s record pages is as the player with the most Test outfield catches, many of them at slip. Although he began to shell a few chances in England and Australia recently, for most of his career there was inevitability about the dismissal being completed when the ball was edged into Dravid’s vicinity. A further indication of his fielding ability is that, for a period in the early 2000s, he kept wicket for India in One-day Internationals and, although he could never claim to master the role, he always gave 100% effort and was rarely a liability.

Dravid’s brilliance as a cricketer has, by all reports, been more than matched by his brilliance as a person. Christopher Martin-Jenkins commented that “He has never done a graceless thing on a cricket field” and, from the accounts of those that know him, that assessment extends beyond the boundary edge. Dravid is one of a select group of cricketers, Kumar Sangakkara also among them, who play an active role in debating the future of the sport which has made them household names. He sits, along with great names from yesteryear, on the MCC’s Cricket Committee that has been instrumental in suggesting improvements to the international game in recent years. He also delivered the Bradman Oration in Canberra at the end of 2011. That opportunity was taken to discuss empty stadiums in India, the need for one-day and Twenty20 matches to be scheduled more carefully and how the possibility of day-night Test cricket should not be ruled out in attempting to to maintain the primacy of the longest format. The speech was described as “meticulous, wide-ranging and fascinating” and, although these issues were already being discussed by some sections of the media, the gravity with which Dravid spoke gave his opinions a much greater weight.

If such a great cricketer can have one regret it may be that his period as national captain was so short – less than two years between November 2005 and September 2007. His Test record was good but, in the eyes of the Indian public, his captaincy was marred by the disastrous 2007 World Cup campaign and Sourav Ganguly and MS Dhoni will thus be remembered far more fondly as leaders of the great Indian side that Dravid was such a fundamental part of. However, this is the only minor blot on an otherwise superb career. Dravid scored runs in all corners of the world and in a number of different, and often difficult, situations. Over the years he became India’s great fortress at number three and established himself as a true statesman of the modern game. And with the rise of Twenty20 – something he is himself concerned about – it may be that international cricket is never again graced by a player or person of his kind.


Test career: 164 Tests, 13288 runs @ 52.31, 36 100s & 63 50s, 210 catches
ODI career: 344 ODIs, 10889 runs @ 39.16, 12 100s & 83 50s, 196 catches and 14 stumpings