Captains, not players

Rahul Dravid's resignation as the captain of the Indian cricket team has taken everyone by surprise including, it would seem, his father and the Indian cricket team now playing the T20 championship in South Africa. People are not perhaps as upset at seeing him go as the fact that he actually gave up the top job, that too quietly, without being asked to leave by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and, most importantly, without the sports media howling for his blood. "How dare he?" is probably the more dominant emotion rather than regret and dread over what the future might hold for Indian cricket.

For the fact is that although Dravid is a great batsman and has had a passable record of wins and losses during his two-year term at the helm, he didn't have enough of what it takes to be captain today "" barely concealed and obviously controlled aggression of the sort displayed by, say, Ricky Ponting and Paul Collingwood. They are both what the Australians call 'scrappers', a generic term used to describe aggression, fighting spirit, the tendency not to give up and, of course, a lack of manners that has become de riguer these days.

This is not to say that Dravid didn't have the tenacity to fight when cornered. But that was only or mainly as a batsman. As a captain, sadly, he was lacking somewhat. He was cast in the defensive mould and lost some matches that could have been won with a bit more aggression. From all accounts he was also not able to properly discipline his team when it played badly.

It is unlikely, however, that his quiet "" and in the context of the way the game is played now, understated "" ways would have persuaded the Board to ask him to go. As far as it was concerned, he had all the necessary qualities: a good batting record, seniority, the respect of his colleagues (but not fear), excellent manners which made him a fine ambassador for the country, and, above all, an inclination not to defy the power-that-be.

The last weighs a lot with the current Board which, say those in the know, has become increasingly parochial. Everyone who counts for anything these days is from just one state. There is no reason to believe that the next Indian captain will also not be from there.

Given the new challenges from the Indian Cricket League, this is also a good time for the Board to take a good hard look at how it views the job of captain. Those who have read the biography of Mohammad Azharuddin by Harsha Bhogle will recall how captaincy was offered to him. "Kyon miyan, kaptan banoge?" is what Raj Singh Dungarpur apparently asked Azharuddin in 1990. This very pukka, "Hello, old chap, want to be captain?" approach might have suited a different time but is clearly an anachronism now. Yet, that is how the Board and the state associations still pretty much run the game "" on whimsy and politics, both.

The key issue in deciding who will be captain is to be able to distinguish between playing ability and managerial ability. It is rare for one player to have both in equal measure. Usually, the good players make bad captains and indeed, start playing badly as well. A good cricketing brain and a will to win along with some people skills is what's needed in a good captain, not necessarily great batting or bowling excellence. This is what the Board should focus on as it starts to look around for a long-term captain.