Did the BCCI act too hastily in appointing Gambhir as Dravid’s successor? That question can only be answered with the perspective of hindsight.
Although it’s still early in Gautam Gambhir’s tenure as head coach of the national team, his experience thus far has been far from satisfying or fulfilling.
The former India opener took over a highly successful team in July from his idol, Rahul Dravid, who stepped down after two and a half years in charge following India’s T20 World Cup victory in Bridgetown in June. Gambhir understood the magnitude of the legacy he was inheriting and the significant expectations that came with it, but his experience in the fast lane has proven to be far from smooth.
The honeymoon period for Gambhir has been short-lived. The first signs that he faced significant challenges emerged in Colombo in August, when India’s batters struggled against Sri Lankan spin, resulting in a 0-2 loss in a three-match One-Day International series (with the first match ending in a tie). This should have served as an early wake-up call, highlighting the misconception that India remains adept at handling spin. Perhaps that lesson was overlooked, contributing to their shocking 3-0 whitewash at home against New Zealand, an outcome that has jeopardized their chances of qualifying for the World Test Championship final.
Rohit Sharma recently spoke passionately about the need for players to take responsibility in order to ease the transition for the incoming support staff. The skipper makes a valid point. For a long time, the team had become accustomed to a certain way of operating, and suddenly having to reset and adapt to a new approach can be challenging. Similarly, it must be difficult for Gambhir to step in and disrupt the established order. In competitive sports, the importance of synergy is often underestimated, but at the highest level, coaching is less about refining techniques like high left elbows and proper wrist positions and more about managing players and fostering the right environment for these established superstars to perform at their best, day after day.
Gambhir has had a hectic three months, leading the team through a white-ball tour of Sri Lanka in July-August (which included three T20Is and three ODIs), a two-Test series against Bangladesh in September, and three T20Is against the same team in October. This culminated in a dismal three-Test series against New Zealand, which ended in unprecedented humiliation at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai on Sunday. In their 12 previous tours to India, the Kiwis had managed to win only two Tests, the last of which was in November 1988. Within just three weeks and ten playing days, they became the first team to win three consecutive Tests in India and the first to achieve a sweep in a home series of at least three Tests.
The responsibility doesn’t rest solely with the players, no matter how absurd that may sound. It might be easy to argue that they are the ones on the field, fighting to secure victory. Isn’t it their skill, patience, resilience, and ability to handle challenges and pressure that ultimately determine the outcome? Certainly. But if that were the case, why have a coach at all? Why assemble a growing support staff selected by the incoming coach? Why include assistant coaches and throwdown specialists?
Gambhir Under Scrutiny
There’s no doubt that Gambhir is facing scrutiny. Questions are already being raised about his involvement in selection meetings, a privilege not granted to many of his predecessors. His insistence on preparing turning tracks for home Tests is also being closely examined. Additionally, the inclusion of players from certain teams he was previously associated with is drawing criticism. This is the reality in Indian cricket, particularly when results are lacking. The New Zealand whitewash was not only unexpected but also disastrous in many respects. Even Gambhir could not have anticipated avoiding harsh criticism, despite it still being early in his three-and-a-half-year tenure as head coach. Is all the criticism justified? What do they say about bouquets and brickbats?
Did the Board of Control for Cricket in India act too hastily in appointing Gambhir as Dravid’s successor? That question can only be answered with the benefit of hindsight. For a long time, the BCCI believed that VVS Laxman, the head of the NCA, would readily take over the role left by Dravid, despite Laxman showing little interest in doing so as early as a year before Dravid’s tenure ended. Gambhir came with potential, if not extensive coaching experience (having served as a mentor for Lucknow Super Giants and Kolkata Knight Riders). He now needs to quickly turn things around in the most challenging of cricketing environments, Australia, for that potential to become a reality.
