Dravid's war with himself

It is almost impossible not to compare Rahul Dravid with Shakespeare's Brutus, because as captain he seemed to be at war with himself. There was always an aspect to his captaincy where he wondered whether he was doing right by his players. This is the problem with an individual who by nature keeps his feelings to himself, and if he confides at all it would be to people who are close to him. But outside his family, who? Maybe if Greg Chappell, the Australian who coached India, had continued he might have helped the Karnataka lad come out in the open. That was not to be as Greg was pulled into the quagmire that Indian cricket can sometimes be.
If I were to say that Rahul was affected by Greg's departure, I do not think I would be far off the mark. The two had forged a wonderful relationship based on trust and respect. If you know the Chappells-Greg is a trifle more diplomatic than the older brother Ian-then it is a family trait not to tolerate any nonsense. Their maternal grandfather, Victor Richardson, a former Australian captain, was one who called a spade a shovel.
Even then the opposition to Greg built up and not without the complicity of ex-captains who were on the very committee that chose him as coach. It was, however, Greg's email to the then president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, Ranbir Singh Mahendra, on September 25, 2005, which was leaked and set the cat among the pigeons. The sum and substance of the email was simple: it is either Sourav Ganguly or I.
It was somehow a fait accompli that Rahul succeeded Ganguly as captain and thereafter, it seemed, but alas for a brief while, that the Greg-Rahul combine would prosper. The setback in the World Cup in the Caribbean finished all that. Rahul has admitted that he thought of kicking the captaincy after this. But the national selection committee headed by former Test captain Dilip Vengsarkar was in a dilemma: who was there to take Rahul's position? The clock had to be turned back to Sachin Tendulkar or Ganguly. Again, the two were not quite in the clear in the general perception, for Greg had referred to a couple of senior players queering Rahul's pitch. Was it them?
How Rahul managed to lead and keep his head above water is probably one of the best instances of man management ever exhibited in the history of the game. Vengsarkar made Sachin the Test vice-captain, which Rahul would have welcomed because the Mumbai stalwart-being a member of the selection committee on tour-had to cooperate. As far as Ganguly was concerned, he was making a comeback and had his own problems. Any attempt by him to deviate from the straight and narrow would have landed him in trouble. But all credit to him that he kept his mind clear and concentrated on his batting. Greg's lessons on technique had finally penetrated his cranium and he looked all the better for it.
Rahul must have also welcomed the elevation of the young Mahendra Singh Dhoni as his deputy in the ODIs. He probably would have felt that things were finally falling in place the way he expected. All that was left was to win the Test rubber in England, which he did. What he did not do was to win the rubber 2-0, when at The Oval he had England on the mat. He did not enforce the follow on, and the fact that Vengsarkar justified it made me suspicious that it was not Rahul's doing alone. He would have been "convinced" into doing it and told that it is better to be safe than sorry. After all, the team was one up in the rubber, so why take a risk?
I believe Rahul persuaded himself to be convinced, especially when the manager Chandu Borde, Vengsarkar and Tendulkar seemed to think this was the right way. It was all very well, till Rahul reasoned that he did not enforce the follow on because the bowlers were tired. He must have been miffed that the spearhead of the pace attack, Zaheer Khan, was quoted saying that he was not tired at all.
With the ODIs that followed the Test series, Rahul must have given thought to his future as captain. He revealed this to a news agency on his return: "Towards the end of the England ODI series, I began to consider it. But I didn't want to take any decision there without speaking to my family."
What made him take the decision is a mystery. Before he became captain, I had asked him how badly he wanted it. He told me: "Let it be clear I have not told you. But I want it very badly. Then the kingmaker is in Kolkata." This was a reference to Jagmohan Dalmiya. Now the kingmaker is in Mumbai and that, too, a government bigwig. He wants Tendulkar as captain. And so does the chairman of the selection committee. So Rahul decided he had better go as it would not take much to relieve him of the responsibility. That he had a relatively poor run of scores in England enabled him to trot out the excuse that he needs to concentrate on his batting.
Ask him and he would tell you off the record that he was feeling hemmed in. He was never able to assert himself and would have had a tough time fitting VVS Laxman into the Test playing eleven against the claims of Yuvraj Singh. The fact is Laxman always deserved to bat higher than Ganguly, but that was quite impossible for Rahul to ensure. No specialist batsman likes to regularly partner the tail and thank heavens there was Dhoni at number seven to make it worthwhile.
I am sure if Rahul does not play another Test or ODI it would not matter anymore. He has had his fill of intrigue. His parting shot is the reference to the "shelf life" of a captain. And that is a warning to all those who aspire the top job in Indian cricket.
(Rajan Bala is consultant editor of 'The Asian Age' in Bangalore).