Who's next?

Two days after India were outclassed in the recent one-day series against Pakistan, Bob Woolmer, the Pakistan coach, wrote in a column: "I have always believed that in order to win one-day internationals it is important to have three-dimensional cricketers in the team, but not bits and pieces players. India needs to find an allrounder with the capabilities of an Andrew Flintoff, Shaun Pollock or Jacques Kallis." Woolmer wasn't the first person to make this observation, and until India find someone to fill the extra-large boots of Kapil Dev, or the medium-sized ones of Ravi Shastri and Manoj Prabhakar, or even the rugged utility soles of Robin Singh, he won't be the last either.

India's top three all-round performers (excluding wicketkeepers) in that one-day series were Sachin Tendulkar, Virender Sehwag and Yuvraj Singh, who managed a combined 482 runs and 13 wickets between them. Against that, Pakistan's trio of Abdul Razzaq, Shoaib Malik and Shahid Afridi scored 635 runs and, though they took three wickets fewer than their Indian counterparts, bowled nearly 50 overs more at a better combined economy-rate. In the Tests, it was a no-contest, with Afridi and Razzaq - 271 runs, 15 wickets, both playing innings that altered the result of a match, and both striking vital blows with the ball - the only two in the fray.

The worrying aspect, though, is that these lop-sided figures were not surprising in the least. Since 1996, when Prabhakar retired, India have struggled to find someone adept with both bat and ball in Tests. A common method of assessing allrounders statistically is to subtract the batting average from the bowling average. If one draws up such a list, starting from 1 January 1996, with a minimum requirement of 500 runs and 25 wickets, India have just the one entrant in the top 30, Sachin Tendulkar, and that too largely because of his fantastic batting average. To put things in perspective, South Africa have six players in that list; New Zealand and Pakistan four each; Sri Lanka, West Indies, Australia and Zimbabwe three each; England two and Bangladesh one.

India's one-day all-round statistics for the same period aren't as bleak, but with Singh's exit, Sourav Ganguly's bowling decline, and Ajit Agarkar's relegation to the periphery, over the last two years they have mainly had to rely on Tendulkar and Virender Sehwag.

What we have seen in this 10-year period, though, are players who have the potential to become allrounders. We have seen them in domestic cricket, on Under-19 tours and A tours: players like Sunil Joshi and Sanjay Bangar, who have shown glimpses of all-round prowess at Test level but failed to sustain it; and in one-dayers, players like Nikhil Chopra and Ashish Kapoor who made the odd contribution with bat and ball but lacked consistency; players like Reetinder Sodhi and Laxmi Ratan Shukla who impressed at the junior levels but faded away thereafter; those like Sairaj Bahutule, Ramesh Powar and Jai Prakash Yadav who have consistently lorded over the domestic scene but only received the odd chance with the India side; those like Sanjay Raul, Noel David, Iqbal Siddiqui, Gyanendra Pandey and Joginder Sharma who showed promise at the first-class level but looked out of place when picked for India and then couldn't maintain their all-round effectiveness even on the domestic circuit. And then there is someone like Agarkar, who at one time showed terrific spark with both bat and ball at the international level, a spark that has only flickered since.

All this leaves us with several unanswered questions. Were these players fit enough to sustain the rigours of playing as allrounders? Did they err by trying too hard instead of playing within their limitations and maximising performance? What sort of support system did they have at the first-class and junior levels? Did we expect too much once some of them shone at the Under-19 level? Is the domestic format an encumbrance for their development? Why do some of them turn into specialist batsmen or bowlers? How do other countries manage to unearth quality allrounders?

A question of fitness
Mention the word 'allrounder' to any coach and he immediately talks about the importance of fitness. Several players have struggled to develop both aspects of their game, mainly due to the lack of a proper fitness regimen and a support system. "Most allrounders are shaped between the ages of 11 and 17,"Woolmer said to WAC. "The majority of young subcontinent cricketers I have seen are lazy when it comes to working on their fitness. They generally don't do that little bit extra to get stronger, and instead concentrate on improving their cricketing skills. Look at players like Flintoff, Kallis and Pollock - they are tough guys. They are brought up on a diet of rugby, they play the hard sports, and when they take the field they want to do everything."

But is it only about a lax attitude? "Not entirely," Woolmer says. "Most domestic cricketers and junior cricketers in countries like South Africa and England are aware of how to develop their bodies to suit their styles of batting and bowling. A medium-pacer has to follow a certain regimen, a spinner another. It's important to realise this early and develop the body parts as your game is developing."

The amount of cricket played also takes its toll, and injuries force many allrounders to turn into specialists. No sooner has a season ended than some players make for the little leagues in England. They then return to participate in tournaments such as the Moin-ud-Dawla in Hyderabad, the Buchi Babu in Chennai, and the JP Atrey in Punjab. Then comes another gruelling domestic season where they travel far more than in previous years because of the change in format. And through the year they play matches for their companies.

Karsan Ghavri, the former India allrounder who currently coaches Bengal, feels that the demands of first-class cricket are very often overlooked. "Biomechanics and physiotherapy are only now making their entry into the first-class game," he says. "Several players have had no clue about how to build their bodies to suit their game." Chandrakant Pandit, the former India wicketkeeper and present Mumbai coach, talks about the effect injuries have on players. "I have seen many cases where bowlers have suffered serious injuries and lost all confidence. They just don't seem to be able to work hard enough after their recovery. And if they score a few runs during that period, they decide to become specialist batsmen. It's an easy way out."

Shukla's case underscores this point. He started out as a bowler who could bat - he took the new ball and batted in the middle order in the Under-19 World Cup in 1998 - but owing to injuries he has hardly bowled in the last two seasons. He ended both years, however, as the highest scorer for Bengal. As Ghavri says, there will surely be a temptation for him to give up bowling entirely and turn into a specialist batsman.

Not enough bowling
While most players suffer from an overdose of cricket, the medium-pacers tend to struggle because of lack of match practice. Recalling his seven years on the domestic circuit before he made his comeback into the Indian team, Singh says: "We often played on turning tracks and medium-pacers were not given too much priority. I usually came on first or second change. In the second innings, the spinners would do the bulk of the bowling. So I had a big problem developing my bowling skills in match situations. My bowling really developed when I played league cricket in England and I got to bowl 20 to 25 overs a day. It makes a huge difference to your body, action, rhythm and confidence."

Roger Binny, the former India allrounder, thinks pitches around India are a major concern. "When you've bowled on dead pitches all your life, it's tough to suddenly deliver in seamer-friendly conditions abroad. You need to have bowled a lot on similar pitches from a young age to know what to do."

Lost in transit
Indian allrounders who impress at Under-19 World Cups appear to be jinxed. If it was Shukla in 1998, it was Sodhi in 2000. Thanks largely to injury, Sodhi now opens the batting for Punjab whereas his bowling has slipped to a military-medium, partnership-breaking standard. India's leading allrounder in the 2002 edition was Maninder Bisla, but he too shifted from being a medium-pacer/batsman to a wicketkeeper/batsman for Himachal Pradesh. There have been numerous other casualties from the Under-19 level. Vidyut Sivaramakrishnan moved from talented left-arm spinner/useful hitter to opening batsman/restrictive spinner for Tamil Nadu, while Mritunjay Tripathi, opening bowler/big-hitting batsman for Uttar Pradesh, simply faded away.

Often players buckle under the burden of expectation. Singh believes that too much should not be read into Under-19 performances. "I don't think Sodhi and Shukla were as good allrounders as they were made out to be in the first place. We shouldn't build up our expectations and then wonder what went wrong."

Pandit, too, isn't too surprised by the trend. "The difference between the Under-19 level and first-class cricket is huge. You can't play the same way and expect to consistently excel. Bowlers around the country can sort you out in no time and within a few weeks all players know your weaknesses. You need to constantly adapt your game, which most of these players are not used to at the lower levels."

A point that often goes unacknowledged is that the balls used in junior-cricket matches, the SG Tournament balls, are inferior to the SG Test balls used in the senior grade. The SG Test swings more and has a more prominent seam. So why not use it for junior levels? Because there aren't that many available. And why doesn't SG make enough? Because it takes them two and a half months to manufacture one, and the board doesn't inform them in advance. Meanwhile, everyone continues to talk of how batsmen and bowlers struggle to adapt to the change.

Mindgames
Several allrounders have overcome the physical fitness barriers, yet been unable to handle the mental pressures. Caught between bat and ball, they tend to switch routes before diagnosing the problem with their core competence. Pandit cites Kapil as a classic case of one who didn't waver. "Kapil knew he was primarily a bowler and when he went through a lean patch, he did everything he could to sort out his bowling problems. He always considered his batting to be a bonus. Today's allrounders are caught in between the two. When struggling with their bowling, they concentrate more on their batting and vice-versa. Soon they are doing neither well and the pressure builds up."

That confusion extends to their role in the team as well. According to Singh, some players languish because they don't give too much thought to their methods: "You need to weigh the situation every season."It is a predicament he faced himself: "Initially I was more of a grafter but I changed my style to suit one-day cricket. India needed allrounders at that stage and I thought I could vie for the No. 7 slot. So I made it a point to bat lower down the order even for Tamil Nadu and tried to simulate the situation that I may have to face in international cricket. Even if I was in good form, I wasn't keen on batting higher up. In hindsight, it was a very good move as I now realise that one-day cricket is about familiarising yourself with situations."

Perhaps this last point is pertinent for someone like Yadav, who is currently aiming for a No. 7 slot in the Indian side as a medium-pacer/hitter, but bats at No. 4 for Railways. Likewise, perhaps Powar needs to work more on his one-day bowling and turn into a genuine contender for the allrounder's slot. Perhaps Suresh Raina and Gaurav Dhiman, two promising allrounders from the latest Under-19 World Cup, are now experiencing the drastic shift between the junior and senior levels and need to work on their physical and mental fitness. Perhaps Piyush Chawla, the standout allrounder against the England Under-19s a few months ago, is going through the most crucial stage in his development right now. Hopefully we won't be discussing the same topic in 2015.