Run out at both ends

Only the most naively optimistic fan of Indian cricket can believe that a little manoeuvring will solve the current crisis. Some hard decisions are needed, especially if the Board wishes for more than a stop-gap solution.

The first of these is to start afresh by removing both the coach and the captain; the second is to build a team that stands a fighting chance at the next World Cup, due to be played in 2007 in the West Indies.

It should be clear to those with some understanding of the way the game works that neither Saurav Ganguly nor Greg Chappell can any longer maintain an effective working environment.

To deal with Mr Chappell first, he has over-stepped some lines. Once the selectors had chosen Mr Ganguly as captain, it was not the coach's call to ask him to step down before a ball has been bowled in the Test series.

Nor does a diatribe over the e-mail mid-way through a two-Test series suggest restraint and measured speech. The subsequent patch-up was clearly a fraudulent exercise if the e-mail's leaked contents were seriously meant""as they seem to have been.

Mr Chappell clearly brings with him a typically Australian rough-talking, no-nonsense approach which lies contrary to the Board's and Indian cricket's preferred way of doing things""suggestion, compromise, accompanied by a whole lot of politics.

Mr Chappell will now find it difficult to strike the right balance with a new captain, who will be from the existing team and who will find it difficult to exercise independent judgement if the Board backs Mr Chappell in this row. And no one wants the shadow of this dispute to linger over a new coach-captain duo.

However, the coach's arguments against Mr Ganguly's inclusion in the team are valid. The immediate question is the captaincy, and the larger one the nature of India's 2007 World Cup team.

There comes a point when, no matter how successful a captain you are, if you cannot keep your place in the side for what you were originally selected, you become a liability to the team. Even Sachin Tendulkar found it difficult to balance the two and opted to simply bat.

Mr Ganguly's decision is, however, not easy. Were he to renounce the captaincy, there's no guarantee that he will hold his place in the side as a batsman, especially because of the quality of those he keeps out of the side.

In other words, if Mr Ganguly isn't captain, he is not in the team. But that is precisely why he should not be captain, and indeed why he should not have replaced Rahul Dravid after the Sri Lankan tour.

The tough decisions, therefore, lie with the Board. This is about the time that teams begin planning for the next World Cup and India should be no different. As things stand, at least half the present Indian side's key players will find themselves too old by 2007.

This translates into not just a liability in the field but also, critically, slower reflexes on the unpredictable West Indian wickets. The Board, therefore, needs to take the bit between its teeth, Australian-style.

For this, first, it must not be seen to be taking sides in the current dispute and sack coach and captain both so that it can start again. Secondly, it must ensure that new players are given more chances to prove themselves in future team selections.