Rahul Dravid's decision: Why not rather than why
Source: Times of India, 19 Sep 2007
For the sake of the team, Rahul Dravid decided to withdraw from the World Twenty20; for his own sake, in probably a trickier dilemma, he has now sacrificed the extra-special privilege of captaining India too. Both are brave and praiseworthy decisions. After all, in a world run by power-hungry and ambitious individuals, who would give up the country's most high-profile, if not most important, job? Who would opt out just after winning the Holy Grail in cricket - a Test series win in England - anyway? For many, his decision may seem like a shocking one; for those who know him, though, it was the most obvious and one of the easiest calls. Simply because he's probably the only player in the Indian team who believes in the good old philosophy: why not rather than why. "I take great joy in doing whatever I do well," he had told this writer recently in England, with a twinkle in his eye. One didn't know at that time he wasn't enjoying the captaincy though. On Monday, he listed it as the foremost reason for resigning from the job. It falls into place. You can't blame him for feeling that way, though, after just two years in the job. India's captaincy, contrary to the rosy picture, is actually one of the most complicated and unrewarding tasks. India's captain is anyway like a goldfish trapped in a fish bowl: exposed and with nowhere to hide. The messy system makes his life that much tougher: the selectors treat him as an enemy, team-mates as a scheming pawn, and fans as a punching bag. He has absolutely no friends on the pitch or off it. Worse, the board neither grooms him for the job nor protects him when the going gets rough. The problems start at the first stage itself when the team is selected: the captain doesn't have a vote or much say but faces all the flak for a defeat. On the field, he has to keep thinking on his toes and even stay two steps ahead of the game. It's very easy to strategise and criticise, as Dravid himself said so frostily, sitting in the comforts of the dressing room. And then, after the match, there's the post-mortem too. The bigger calls and decisions (batting or bowling first; time of declaration, etc) may be taken by the team management but the captain is the one who has to stand in front of the firing squad. Dravid probably dislikes all this more than the idea of captaining itself. The BCCI will do well to understand the attrition rate of its captains. Because, before Dravid, the country's most successful captain Sourav Ganguly was thrown out of the team in disgrace; before him, Sachin Tendulkar hung up his thinking cap with tears in his eyes; even before that, Mohammed Azharuddin was vilified even though match-fixing evidence couldn't be found against him. Dravid, at least, is going away from captaincy on a high. Among other things, it is perceived his own form has dipped (even though only marginally in Tests) and he wants to recover it. Most hang on to the job because it gives them extensive media coverage (which translates into bigger money), lots of power over his own mates too and, in some cases, the licence to stay on in the team even while not performing. Dravid clearly doesn't belong to that school. In recent years, he has emerged as the strongest and tallest pillar in the squad. He knows he has to score runs in heaps for Team India to stay on a winning roll. And he doesn't want to forsake that for anything. He'd rather be the best batsman in the side than an okay captain and an okay batsman. How many people can think so far and so selflessly?
