If one is following cricket over the last couple of days, one will have noticed an interesting development. England played their last ODI vs Ireland on August 4 and then started the first Test vs Pakistan on August 5. Yes, you read that right, they began another game less than 24 hours after ending one. Different formats too.
So the question is, were their players burnt out? Not at all. Why? Because none of them were playing in both games! Confused? Don’t be, it’s not rocket science. Basically England played two completely different sides for the two formats. Be it the skipper, keeper, batsmen or bowlers, none of the players were the same. In other words, the ODI players got rest and the Test players were well rested when they took the field.
AFP
To be honest, it is something England began to implement after the 2015 World Cup debacle. After their first-round exit, they realised that some of their core players were suited to certain formats. The revamping was done and soon England had separate skippers and teams for Tests, ODIs and T20Is. Of course the T20I and ODI teams were similar and a few players were common with the Test side but very rarely, but the core strength of the teams was different. So England had not one but three variants of a cricket team. It worked wonders too, they won the Ashes, they made it to the World T20 final and of course won the World Cup.
Jump To
Can it be done in India?
Now the point being raised here is that if India can implement this in any way? At one point there was the talk of having different skippers but it was only suggested and never followed up on. Having said that, India do use different players in different roles across the formats but the core strength remains the same, like our openers or bowlers or all-rounders. It is basically the same combination used in variables.
In that case do we really need it? Does a change in sides according to formats really warrant for us. If one uses the argument that England have done well by this structure over the last 5 years, India have been doing just as well by using the same core strength of players across formats. In fact should this change occur, it might do more harm than good.
How necessary is it?
Why so? Well the Indian cricketers are revered as stars in their own right. So much so that just for the sake of a new theory, one cannot remove them from one side and yet make them the mainstay of the other. It could lead to imbalance, which is the last thing one needs in this situation.
Reuters
But just for the sake of the argument, it is not as ridiculous as it sounds. After all, we are a nation of 130 crore people. There is no lack of talent. When it comes to the T20I side, specialists can be found in the youngest format via IPL and domestic competitions. These changes can be worked into the ODI team as well while the Test team follows a core set of players. It gives us variety and yet some consistency. So maybe it is not that far-fetched.
Food for thought
Having said that, just because England have done it well, does not mean we should jump on it. In the 2007 World T20 we went with a younger team instead of the Big 3, and we won the tournament. That team later formed the nucleus of the side which won the 2011 World Cup. So maybe it can be the building block for the future, but at the moment, all our teams are in good place and tinkering with them is like trying to fix something that is not broken.
BCCI
Perhaps right now is not the time to experiment. However, it is something to be kept in mind of for the future. After all, cricket is evolving and the game never stops changing. Sometimes, even if we don’t want to, we have to change with it.