Records no help in final

Prem posed the question at the end of his last match report, after Tendulkar and Ganguly had set a new world record for the first wicket in India's thumping of Kenya, why a team with so many individual records to celebrate does not rank with the top few teams in the world. It's an intriguing question that must vex everyone with an interest in Indian cricket.

Tendulkar and Ganguly had just set a new world record, yet I fully expected South Africa to defeat India in the final regardless. Why?

First of all, they are clearly India's two best ODI players, on whom the team's fortunes unhealthily hinge. Get one out early, and India's batting potency is vastly reduced. Get both, and the opposition knows the most difficult part of the match has already been won.

At 2/31 in the 12th over, one wondered whether the final was effectively over. Dravid was capable of holding the innings together, but did not threaten to single-handedly resurrect it. After Sehwag, the rest did not inspire any belief that they could transform the innings. Two overs into South Africa's innings the result was obvious and another final had been lost. Individual records were of no assistance and nowhere to be found.

Secondly, individual statistics are relevant to a team's performance only in an academic sense. It's fun to leisurely leaf through the stats book or look up records online, and if you're like me it's always exciting to see a world record fall. But individual records don't usually measure or define winning teams. Remember, it wasn't just Bradman who was dubbed Invincible in 1948. He needed his team-mates too. In terms of consistently winning matches, records are meaningless, as India has found. What's the point of being able to beat Kenya by a record margin if you can't match South Africa?

Tendulkar and Ganguly are probably the best opening pair in ODI history and nothing should detract from that. But from a team point of view, their records have little significance if they don't contribute to victories in the important matches.

India's opening pair is simply a leading example of the overall irrelevance of statistics, though, and should not be singled out. It would be ridiculously unfair to blame only the best players for India's failure to win finals, since over-reliance on them is the very problem.

The best teams in any sport are usually known for rising to the occasion when it matters most, not for what they do in the preliminary stages of competition. It's the same for individual players. Some are capable of looking brilliant, world-class performers at lower levels of the game, but are surprisingly exposed at the elite level. Prolific first-class batsman Graeme Hick is one example, and one-day master Michael Bevan is another. Both have impressive records but have been proven flawed at the highest level. Team India seems to suffer from the same problem.

I read with a little scepticism comments like "if only our players had the right attitude" and "if only the team had more discipline," or "if India just played with more consistency..." and "we have the most talent, but we don't play like a team" and so on.

Well, if a team had talent, consistency, discipline and a professional attitude then of course it would be amongst the best! It would look like South Africa. Teams like South Africa and Australia also possess some wonderful talent, it just doesn't always manifest itself as much individually because of the collective strength of the team.

There is no simple solution that is going to magically help India join or replace that pair. South Africa and Australia enjoy the success they currently do because they have worked hard, embodied the above qualities and planned for it. It did not happen by accident.

In the Indian one-day team, the opposition sees Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid and then a collection of average batsmen who might be dangerous if provided freedom to dictate but who are otherwise not expected to be a credible threat. In Sodhi, Sehwag and Yuvraj it is fair to say India has three batsmen yet to reveal their full potential so any criticism must be tempered, but the final did offer an opportunity for any one of them to make a statement and none took it. Sehwag must be especially disappointed because he had found a groove with Dravid and was helping build a competitive total when he gave it away.

Rightly or wrongly, India gives the impression of a front-runner - a team of undoubted potential, which looks like a spectacular world beater when playing weaker opposition or in a comfortable environment, but is nevertheless questionable in big matches or when placed under undue pressure.

That still does not explain why it is found wanting, which may be an even harsher reality. If a team that is so ostensibly talented continually fails to perform when it counts, then you have to wonder whether a re-evaluation of that talent is required. Maybe India is an over-achiever and not an under-achiever - a team that can occasionally produce superlative displays, but too often reverts to mediocrity.

In short, it could be that India as a one-day team is slightly over-rated by supporters desperate to see it do well, which leads to expectations higher than deserved given its record. It's one theory, anyway.

India's tour of South Africa: Complete coverage

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw