Clown and the Tiger

This morning, I was reading a piece by Amit Varma, The IPL reveals India's bench strength. This was not the first piece I have been reading on similar lines—some of them by notable cricket writers. I asked myself—Am I missing something? How can the IPL tell you about the bench strength? In that case, have I understood the word 'bench strength' correctly?

These guys must be joking, I felt. How can IPL tell you about the bench strength? When Tevez isn't part of the Manchester United eleven, that is bench strength. When Lionel Messi is a reserve in the Argentinean team, it tells you about the bench strength of the team! How can a Gony and a Dinda tell you about the bench strength of the Indian team for the longer version based on some festival cricket? Probably, the IPL or T20 can give you an indication of their talents, which they need to take forward to do well in the international arena. This still doesn't add up to the bench strength of the Indian team!

How can a four-over spell in a domestic festival match give an indication of a bowler's capability at the higher level? Just because a clown tames a tiger in a circus, you can't make him a forest ranger, can you? Similarly, how can an innings of 40 in an IPL match tell you that an opener can face a Steyn or a Lee on a bouncy wicket? The ideal way is to test these guys in a four-day environment and see if they have picked up anything from the Pontings or McGraths or Warnes. If the players come up trumps and force their way into the Indian team, then you can probably mutter the word 'bench strength' (not say it)!

But I get this uneasy feeling—that our selectors will pick a team based on the IPL performances—too often have they ignored their instincts and gone by public sentiment (anybody?). Probably, bench strength means that players are good enough to sit on the bench and not good enough to play at the highest level—I hope not.