The current competitive phase of the game shows that there is a dearth of all-rounders as well as of ambidextrous bowlers who can swing a match

As I watched the second day of the second Test against South Africa, I found that the fast bowlers had not been able to take a wicket for quite a few hours. Yet none of them tried to bowl, for a change, with his left arm. Or a leg cutter, like Fazal Mahmood of Pakistan used to successfully bowl in his day. Or even try a different type of slow delivery as Gary Sobers of the West Indies used to try when his opening spell was over. He was otherwise an opening pacer.

In the current competitive phase of cricket, why are there so few all-rounders? One of the few rays escaping through the clouds is of all-rounders, while there is sunshine of specialists. A right-handed batter can be a left-arm bowler. Why cannot a left-arm bowler, slow, medium or fast, bowl with his right arm? The brain or the technology of bowling is the same. The bowler is left-arm opener but he won’t try his other arm when his left fails to take a single wicket. The answer might be that he was not trained to bowl with both arms. True, but why cannot a young player of 22 make up by getting trained at this not-old age? Is it his fear of diluting his expertise with his left arm? Or is it just a plain mindset? Jaspreet Bumrah appears to have experimented with some batting lately. So probably has Mohammed Shami, although a little too late.

To say that India is a large country is an understatement, and particularly so, when said in the context of cricket. Australia, Sri Lanka and the West Indies are tiny by comparison. Yet each of them fields a Test team of 11 players; no more, no less. No nation fields, say, two or three teams. The same is the case with the 50-over one-dayer and the Twenty-20. In all, no country fields more than a total of 33 players on any single day. Sri Lanka, with 25 million people, and India, with 1,400 million, are weighed on the same scale. In the bargain, Indian cricketers are stifled with a miniscule scope for a career rise in recognised international cricket. One also knows that Indian players or their training academies do little to make youngsters more competitive.

For those young boys and girls who are ambidextrous, there are clearly five talents they could conceptually cultivate. This is batting and bowling with both hands and arms. Fielding is the fifth ability. Here, too, why not learn to throw with both hands, which would make for a maximum of six faculties? If one goes by the example of Gary Sobers, there is the choice of fast bowling as well as slow-medium. This should be the simplest option.

This plea for all-rounders or versatile players is not merely for players and their training academies, but also for India. The boom in cricket began first with the introduction of one-dayers and, a few decades later, the advent of the Twenty-20 matches. Another great boost has been the innovation of the Indian Premier League (IPL), which has given a great deal of scope to young men all over India to obtain recognition and many of them do eventually reach the international arena. Without the IPL, a number of our cricketing flowers would not have been able to blossom so gloriously. The gardener who conceived this League is by now unfortunately forgotten in some lesser known corner of the globe where he cannot be located and recognised! Indeed a great pity.

What we can apprehend is that in the absence of a continually expanding scope for players, they may at some future date consider emigrating to smaller countries. Suppose a small country like New Zealand runs short of talented cricketers, it might tempt a few Indian players to migrate. I suppose there is nothing wrong with such a development. But I find it unwelcome if it is a result of our failure to foresee the future.

Something inexplicable needs to be mentioned here; which is that certain tournaments attract crowds, while others just do not. Take the Ranji Trophy, named after the distinguished batter Jam Ranjitsinhji, who innovated the behind-the-wicket stroke as a deliberate scoring attempt. Especially the leg-cut, the sweep etc, were not played until Ranji showed in England, mainly in the County Cricket tournaments, how to play these shots. Even the off-side cuts were not very common; the frequent scoring style was in front of the wicket, whether on the leg or the off side. Yet Ranji Trophy matches in India do not draw crowds. They never have, although playing for one’s State should arouse enthusiasm.

In sharp contrast, the Pentangular and, before it, the Quadrangular tournaments used to enjoy mass popularity. This was in the 1930s and 1940s. The latter comprised a Hindu, a Muslim, a Parsee and a European team. Thereafter, a ‘Rest of India’ team was added to give Christians, Jews and others an opportunity. This popular tourney ended with rioting in many parts of the country, followed by Partition. The 50-over One-Day Internationals and Twenty-20s have revolutionised cricket in this context.

(The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha. The views expressed are personal.)