Gautam Gambhir's misinterpretation of Indian head coach job description is hurting his tactical legacy

‌In the early 1200s, two huge empires emerged from chaos in Eurasia – the Mongols in the east and the Khwarazmain Empire to its west. The leader of the former was a certain visionary in Genghis Khan, who sought the expansion of his domain through diplomatic means. However, the untrusting leader of Khwarazmain, Muhammad II, accused Genghis’ attempts at opening trade relations as a means to spy and stripped his ambassadors of their riches. Ever so patient, Genghis sent three more men as another gesture of peace – Muhammad II responded with beheadings, perhaps the single biggest mistake in history. Within months, his empire was turned to ashes and rubble, and he died destitute in exile.

Selecting a World Cup squad in cricket is an unforgiving job. Unlike football or even franchise cricket where teams can carry over 25 men, the ICC norms still allow contingents of only 15 for marquee events. In present-day India where they could potentially field two separate XIs that would walk into a home World Cup as favourites, outsiders understandably view the available depth of talent as a luxury. Yet, for the selectors and coaches, it is a lose-lose situation because it is at times impossible to pick between names. Look at the 15 names that made the cut in isolation and barely a case can be made against the inclusion of any of those individuals. But the dichotomy is that the same can be said for names that have been left out. And in India, where cricket is looked at as a religion, every miniscule decision is scrutinized with a microscope, while the advent of social media means every fringe player has a fan army waiting to go up in keyboards.

Gill, in-effect the vice-captain for the entirety of the T20 World Cup cycle, was dropped altogether in the final squad announcement for the home event. The decision seemed inevitable, given he averages under 25 in T20Is in the calendar year while striking at 140. The problem is, according to chief selector Ajit Agarkar, the form was immaterial. He explained that Gill had been left out in lieu of India wanting to pair Abhishek Sharma with a wicket-keeper up the order, allowing them more flexibility to field all-rounders lower down. Funnily enough, in the eight T20I squads named in Gambhir’s tenure, not one had two wicket-keeping opener options. The logic behind Ishan Kishan’s inclusion in lieu of Gill was stated to be for continuity in combination, in the case of Sanju Samson encountering an injury. Yet, the same thought process was not employed in the other multi-team tournament, the Asia Cup, which holds significant relevance in its own right because of the nations participating. In fact, it was the same Asia Cup where India tried to shoehorn Sanju Samson into the middle-order even though they had a specialist keeper for the role Jitesh Sharma in their ranks. Agarkar’s comments imply Kishan would’ve made it to the squad regardless of Gill’s output, but  it needs little guessing of whether Gill would have been in the squad if he had managed to keep up his IPL form where he struck 650 runs at 155-plus.

Speaking of Jitesh, the keeper was a part of the last four out of five Indian T20I squads, and seemed to have leapfrogged Rinku Singh for the finisher’s role after the latter was dropped for the latest endeavour against South Africa. Yet, Rinku not only finds himself back in the mix but is destined to be a starter straightaway, while Jitesh’s demotion sees him heading out of the squad altogether despite not putting a foot wrong during his stint with the Men in Blue. A 15-man squad limits backup options, but India currently have two pace backups and none in the finisher’s slot. Either the management thinks that ICC does not allow them to have three wicket-keepers in the squad, or they cannot play two wicket-keepers in one lineup. Your guess is as good as mine.

Gambhir’s dictum of exploiting the powerplay, batting till at least eight, and stacking the team with all-rounders has paid off handsomely as far as results are concerned. Not only is India winning games but also leads in pretty much all metrics across bowling and batting, in all phases of the game. However, coaching the national team takes more than just a sharp tactical mind, it takes man management and communication. International cricket is starkly different to franchise cricket, where the squad options are fixed throughout a campaign and not in control of the coach. There are no players returning or leaving at random points owing to workload management and injuries, the job lasts for two months at best, and there is no time to experiment with every game as important in the long-term as it is in the short-term. Results take clear precedent over all else, with a clear goal to clinch the trophy in sight every tea a team takes the field. In the franchise world, each press conference does not have reporters teeming for a headline, a rather self-fulfilling job given headlines emerge all the same every time Gambhir opens his mouth. Perhaps that realization is yet to dawn on him.

India, by all means, are the favourites to lift the World Cup in a couple months’ time. Doing so, Gambhir may very well go down as one of the leading tacticians of his time and fulfill the Genghis prophecy. But unless he dons his communicator hat, learns some man management, and most importantly understands that fans are the heartbeat of the sport, he risks transforming into a Muhammad II instead. A paranoid man writhing with distrust of anyone that dared approach him and failed to understand the needs of his own subjects, thus paving the path to his own damnation.