One week ago, James Anderson’s delivery crashed into Mohammed Shami’s stumps and India had lost the last test match and, with it, the series against England. As was to be expected, analyses followed in an attempt to make sense of our loss. Mike Brearley, who is now justly acknowledged as a leading thinker on the game, wondered whether Kohli had become too dominant a figure in Indian cricket. The corollary was clear – was this affecting India’s ability to function as a team? An excessively strong personality as a captain could suppress a counter view in the team.
This refusal to entertain any other point of view came across in the reactions of the captain and the coach, Ravi Shastri, of the Indian cricket team. Both of them insisted it was not as devastating a defeat as the final scores would suggest. One cannot help but think that it is that very attitude that was the root cause of our defeat. It really looked as if captain and coach were in denial. It is interesting to see how we arrived at this stage.
One thesis is that it all started in the month of June 2017. That was the month Anil Kumble resigned as coach of the Indian cricket team and Shastri took his place. It was clear all round that Kohli had differences with the bowling legend, and so wanted him gone and Shastri in his place. He got his way.
That incident was a turning point. It significantly altered the dynamics not only of the team but of the captain’s role in the selection process as well. Kohli, from that point on, was no longer just a player. As often happens, power creates its own aura. It feeds on public perception. No one was immune to the new aura that surrounded the Indian captain. Everyone treated him like a superstar. It could be argued that this created some distance between Kohli and his team.
Coach Ravi Shastri. Credit: PTI/Files
A little after the Kumble episode, everyone started praising Kohli. His batting, his temperament, his attitude, his drive, his aggression were all lavishly praised. It was his “aggression” that attracted the most attention. He had created a new template for the behaviour of the Indian team. It was not enough to beat one’s opponents – one must also demonstrate one’s contempt for them. This rubbed off on the rest of the team. It looked as if the Indian team members were not taking to the field to just win the game. They were there to teach their opponents a lesson. This attitude came through in a number of ways. Every dismissal of a rival team member was wildly celebrated. This is understandable – an example of “playing hard”. But when it affects behaviour off the field, it is another thing altogether. At the conclusion of every match, the players of both teams shake hands. Even at that point, quite a number of Indian players now display a hostile front.
One can’t think of a better example of this than Kohli’s refusal (conveyed by Ajinkhya Rahane) to have a drink with the Australian team at the end of the series in 2017. The aim is to make it crystal clear to the rivals where they stand in India’s estimation. This captain-inspired attitude is something that resonates with a large portion of the Indian cricket-watching public, particularly the younger segment. He is not just the captain of the Indian team, he is also its sledger-in-chief. Joe Root did admit his “microphone moment” was the silliest thing he had ever done. Kohli, not content, was insistent on giving Root a send off – running around the field blowing kisses. Does this behove the captain of the Indian cricket team?
Also read: Virat Kohli Skipping the Afghanistan Test Is in Bad Taste
The Nawab of Pataudi Jr instilled in the Indian cricket team a belief that they could stand up to any team in the world. He did this without displays of needless aggression. Kohli would do well to learn a few lessons from Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi on behaviour – on the field and off it.
Many have praised Kohli’s batting average in the recent series. No one points out that he “achieved” this on the back of four dropped catches and one very dodgy umpiring decision. The umpiring decision in particular is worth thinking about. The replay showed the ball going on to hit the stumps with no contact with the bat. Kohli was declared not out. If the third umpire had not rushed to judgement, would things not have been different? Let off on three occasions when he was yet to touch 30, an umpiring decision when he was on 9 – examine his batting average adjusted for these incidents. Yet this does not figure in any analysis of the series.
Virat Kohli celebrating on the field. Credit: Reuters/Paul Childs/Files
True, he has become a larger-than-life figure, but it has gone too far. In one of the IPL matches, Ravindra Jadeja had him out LBW. No celebration from the normally ebullient Jadeja. Was he afraid of antagonising an all-powerful captain? One who had the power to decide his place in the Indian team? He was asked this question and he just smiled as if to say, “Come on, what would you have done?”
Eric Barker’s book Barking up the Wrong Tree is a very interesting study of success based on surveys, studies and analyses of statistics. The author covers various aspects of success – what works in the real world and what does not. He quotes Richard Tedlow, professor emeritus at Harvard Business School, on those leaders who had allowed self-belief to move into self-delusion.
“… I have studied a large number of them who have made mistakes that could and should have been avoided; not just with the benefit of hindsight, but on the basis of information available to decision makers right then and there, in real time. These mistakes resulted from individuals denying reality.”
This is where, it can be argued, Ravi Shastri is not doing his job. Captain and coach seem to be drinking the same Kool Aid. Through some calculation – as baffling to the layperson as the logic of the Duckworth Lewis method – India is the “world’s number one team”. Triumph over two teams that are in the process of remaking themselves leads to much chest-thumping and posturing. Inconvenient questions are met with hostility. Are you still the No. 1 team in the world, Kohli was asked at the conclusion of the series. His response was to ask the journalist what he thought. When the latter said he was not sure, Kohli retorts, “That’s your opinion. Thank you” and smirks like someone who has had the last word.
Also read: At Edgbaston, Virat Kohli Conquers His Final Frontier
No doubt coach and captain have to resort to some rhetoric to charge up their team. But when both start believing their own rhetoric, we are treading on dangerous ground. When self-belief becomes delusion, performance is the first victim. Barker says, “Machiavelli who was not known for recommending sensitivity, warned that leaders need people who will be honest with them in private lest they end up surrounded by fearful sycophants.” This is precisely what Brearely was referring to.
It is here the coach can make a difference. He should help Kohli see things in perspective. But the coach too makes tall claims for his team and explains the defeat by saying one English player made all the difference. In doing so, he ignores the fact that England played like professionals. They too made mistakes, but they handled them like professionals. Shastri ignored the team effort and said one individual made all the difference. This is the root of our problem. We tend to glorify the individual above the team.
Is Kohli the victim of excessive self-belief? No one can say with any degree of certitude. In any event, the power that has passed into Kohli’s hands is indeed a tragedy. He has many qualities to commend him. His talent, his ability to work hard, his physical discipline, his work ethic, his drive to excel. With some introspection and course correction, he can truly lead the team to greatness.
Ravi Menon retired from the Union Bank of India as a general manager in 2011. Post retirement, he has conducted leadership training programmes for banks and other institutions, including a bank in Sub-Saharan Africa. His articles have appeared in The Hindu and New Indian Express.