I believe this is Indian cricket’s greatest triumph, mainly because this team was not the strongest Indian team ever but played like the best Indian team ever. It is quite incredible when you look at India’s bowling attack and its general fielding ability. Those were two massive weaknesses that Mahendra Singh Dhoni had to contend with right through the six-week-long tournament. India’s bowling was about just one world-class bowler in Zaheer Khan, while the rest, more or less, just rallied around him.
Indian Pacer Zaheer Khan during the ICC CWC 2011 Final at Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai. (Photograph by Apoorva Salkade)
Harbhajan Singh, as senior spinner, will be the first to accept that he could have contributed a lot more in this World Cup team. If it were not for Yuvraj Singh’s impact as a left-arm spinner, India would have severely malfunctioned in the World Cup. Yuvraj, interestingly, became this talismanic bowler for India as the tournament went on, so much so that if he bowled well, India won.
Zaheer was always expected to bowl well, so he was that constant factor in the Indian bowling attack. This also showed Zaheer’s growth as a seamer in Indian cricket. After this World Cup, Zaheer has put himself right next to Kapil Dev as the second best seamer ever to play for India.
I often looked closely at Yuvraj’s initial overs when he came on to bowl. If he looked effective in his first couple of overs, India had a great chance of winning the match. This was for two reasons. One, it meant that the pitch was to Yuvraj’s liking, slow and turning, and that also meant that Dhoni could really come into his own as captain. No captain uses the advantage of a slow, turning pitch as well as Dhoni does. Being presented with such a pitch meant he could bring on all his part-time spinning options into play and thereby smartly minimise the drastic effects of a very limited bowling attack.
But the unique, and common, property of these two World Cup-winning teams was that their strengths were so awesome that they made up for glaring weaknesses. While Pakistan had great bowling skills, India had great batting skills that stood up to pressure and tough challenges, especially when chasing targets in big games. (A lot of people have asked me whether this is the best Indian batting line-up ever and I tell them, temperamentally this is the best line-up ever).
The other common, decisive factor between Pakistan of 1992 and India of 2011 was the leadership. If Pakistan had Imran Khan, India had Dhoni. A good leader, I guess, is one who knows the strengths of his team well, but understands the weaknesses better.
Imran started batting at No. 3 at a crucial stage of the 1992 World Cup, to protect a fragile top-order Pakistan batting from some quality bowling in Australian conditions. Dhoni has done the same with his bowling in this World Cup by a clever use of part-time spinners, to the extent that one part-time spinner may now lay claim to being a specialist limited-overs left-arm spinner.
Pakistan’s win in 1992 and the Indian win of 2011 have also shown us that cricketing skills are still crucial and relevant in this changing sport to win big championships. Just being supremely fit is not enough. This may be a cue for cricketers to get out of the gym and practise their physical and mental skills more out on the ground, be it in the nets or matches.
Life as a rookie or an underdog is far easier than when you are the fancied one, expected to win all the time. India were the rookies in 1983 while in 2011 they were the team that was expected to win the Cup. Nothing less would do for their fans. This current team did what Sachin Tendulkar has done all his cricketing life, fulfil high expectations.
Post-1983, all Indian teams have had this kind of pressure of expectation, and it was no different this time. No, the difference this time was that sceptics and ‘experts’ from all over the world expected India to win, so the expectation of die-hard fans of Indian cricket had the ‘sanction’ of clinical analysts, too.
Well, the answer to all this is Mahendra Singh Dhoni.
Until the World Cup, Dhoni had given us enough evidence of his rare quality of being able to absorb pressure and keep everything simple and rational despite the huge stakes in the game. Throughout his captaincy, he has, amazingly, never allowed that one thought to creep into his psyche: “What if this goes wrong?” He takes on-field and off-field cricketing decisions based on cricketing logic that makes sense at the time. He does not like to complicate it by too many counter-thoughts. This mindset is Dhoni’s greatest strength as a human being, as a cricketer, and above all, a leader.
It was this uncomplicated cricketing logic that got him to come up the order in the final ahead of four-time man of the match Yuvraj. With two off-spinners bowling in tandem and a partner in the left-handed Gautam Gambhir, it just made obvious cricketing sense to have a right-hander come in.
But this right-hander was not in the greatest of forms, making the idea—an out-of-form batsman coming ahead of a batsman in tremendous form—a bit tricky. But Dhoni was convinced of its perfect sense and didn’t think of the consequences. As usual, there was no place for the thought “what if this goes wrong”. Right from day one, even after their unconvincing performances against England and South Africa, I found it difficult to shake off my trust in this team. Why? Great batting skills and Mahendra Singh Dhoni.
(Sanjay Manjrekar is a former Indian batsman)
Sanjay Manjrekar’s views (A Sum of Variables...) on fielding stump me—one of the big factors which contributed to India’s victory was our becoming a sharp fielding unit from the knock-out stages onwards.
Other than exposing our precious players to terror attacks, Indo-Pak cricket is not going to help. One does not understand this burning desire on the part of our short-sighted rulers to ‘improve relations’. Understand this, they don’t want it, now or ever.
Rajendra Tandon, Mumbai
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Dhoni plays his cricket by the SAS motto : He who dares wins.
I agree with most of it but Mr.Manjrekar I think India were a formidable fielding unit in the knock out stages and it helped a lot in there cause(and had it been the case against england and SA they would have wone those matches too)I still believe that limited overs cricket is won easily by great fielding sides.....and nehra and munaf bowled some beautiful spells in knockouts...don't you agree?
The presence of Suresh Raina really lifted the morale of the side ..though he was there in group stage too as a sub but being in side charged up the fielding unit ..besides our batsmen chased 260 and our bowlers defended the same total in next one...and had it not been the superb opening spells by zaheer and company ,who knows the sri lankan could have well amassed a total in excess of 350..so I think this world cup victory was an example of great team effort and not just a single department show!!...
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT