Two More Cents on the All-Time Indian Test XI

The announcement of the Cricinfo all-time India test XI has, predictably, created quite a stir and generated a whole lot of debate. In less than 24 hours, Cricinfo has published over 230 comments and 4,792 netizens have recommended the piece on Facebook. So, it would be rude of me not to chime in with my own two cents.

First, here are the XI as chosen by Cricinfo’s jury of 11 experts (in batting order):

Sunil Gavaskar, Virender Sehwag, Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar, Vijay Hazare, Vinoo Mankad, Kapil Dev, MS Dhoni, Anil Kumble, Javagal Srinath, Erapalli Prasanna.

I will restrict this post to just debating the most contentious selections (and non-selections).

The choice of MS Dhoni as wicket-keeper has generated a significant amount of controversy. I would not have picked Dhoni in this XI. It is clear that in terms of pure glovesmanship, Dhoni lags other candidates such as Syed Kirmani and Kiran More. The argument for his selection is simple: he adds value with his batting abilities.

True enough, Dhoni’s test batting average of 41.90 far exceeds that of Kirmani’s (27.04) and More’s (25.70). However, the point is that with perhaps the most powerful batting line-up of any national all-time XI, India is the country that can best afford to pick a ‘keeper for his keeping abilities alone.

If Gavaskar, Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Hazare, and two all-rounders are not going to score the required runs, Dhoni’s extra 14-odd runs per innings (when compared with Kirmani) is not going to make much difference. One quite simply needs the best possible ‘keeper to deal with the likes of Kumble, Prasanna, and Mankad, and so, for mine, Kirmani should have been picked.

Another much-debated selection is that of Vijay Hazare at No. 5. Cricinfo readers also chose their XI and the only position in which they differed with the experts was on this one—readers chose VVS Laxman. However, much post-selection uproar has suggested that Sourav Ganguly should have been picked in this position instead.

The argument for Ganguly is that his value lies in his ability to build and lead a fighting team (Indeed, I’ve eulogised on this trait elsewhere). Yet, despite my utmost respect for this quality that Ganguly brought to Indian cricket, I think there are enough leaders and fighters in the team to make his inclusion, for this reason alone, untenable.

Hazare has an average of 47.65, Ganguly 42.17, and Laxman 47.22. For mine, it’s a call between Hazare and Laxman. I’ll avoid picking one for now because I don’t know enough about Hazare and his achievements.

What about the selection of Prasanna over the other members of the famed spin quartet of the ‘70s? Assuming that we agree that Kumble is in, then who can complement him best? Bedi and Chandrasekhar are out because they spin the ball in the same direction (away from the right hander). Cue joke about Kumble not spinning the ball. Venkatraghavan has the weakest record of the four, which leaves Prasanna.

Lastly, we have Srinath. The pre-voting short-list of fast bowlers (Javagal Srinath, Kapil Dev, Zaheer Khan, Mohammad Nissar, Amar Singh) reflects—in stark measure—the paucity of fast-bowling talent that India, as a country, has managed to produce over the years. Personally, I would have selected either Mohammad Nissar or Amar Singh (mostly on a hunch), though I see why Srinath (236 wickets at 30.49) or Zaheer Khan (242 at 32.98) would be a more rational choice.

Side note: This attack can take 20 test wickets. Initially, when I saw the short-list, I worried about this, but looking at it now—Kapil, Kumble, Prasanna, Mankad, and one other fast bowler—I’m less concerned.