When Greg Chappell was appointed the coach of the Indian team earlier this year, the BCCI bigwigs made no secret of the primary motive behind the decision. His rich experience as player, captain, coach and analyst induced the selection panel to elect him. An equally important factor was his nationality.

The men who have helmed Indian cricket in modern times have argued aggressively that the only way the national team can reach the pinnacle of the sport is by emulating its Australian counterpart in method, preparation and attitude.

Of course, there is nothing wrong in seeking inspiration from the very best in one's profession, but this is really a process of 'extremes', wherein you cannot be choosy. In other words, you cannot play 'follow the leader' on one front and prefer to remain unchanged on another. The achievements of the awesome Aussies in the last fifteen years or so are the result of a cumulative effort, not just by the men who wear the baggy green cap, but also by the men who have selected them and run the sport.

The first 'official' step of the BCCI to nurture the future of Indian cricket in a 'professional' and 'scientific' manner, was the inception of the National Cricket Academy on the lines of the Australian Cricket Academy, in 2000. Several other steps were subsequently taken towards this end, like the appointment of 'trained' support-staff being made mandatory for Ranji Trophy sides, and of course, the advent of Greg Chappell as the Guru of the national team.

The recent performances of the Indian team have ushered in a wave of optimism. Experience has bonded well with youth, and even the 'bench' comprises hungry young men who are eager to make the most of every opportunity. Indian cricket-lovers have wondered how soon their team, with its reservoirs of talent and new-found 'professionalism', will pose a serious, sustained challenge to Australia's place at the summit of world cricket. Much as one hates to admit this, the signs of this happening aren't favourable.

The reason is pretty simple - WE INDIANS DON'T LOVE THE GAME ENOUGH!

Imagine yourself as the Chief Selector of a national side. You have dropped two talented cricketers who have played poorly in the previous few matches. Player 'A' reacts to his axing by trying to capitalize on whatever opportunities he gets in domestic tournaments. On the other hand, player 'B' opts not to play a single game for his state and hope that 'extraneous pressures' will get him reinstated in the national team. When you sit down with your colleagues a few days later to choose the national squad for a later series, which player will you be more inclined to pick? 'A' or 'B'?

An Australian will go for player 'A' without a moment's thought. But an Indian, as the events of 24th December 2005 showed, will pick player 'B'. Therein lies one of Indian cricket's foremost debilities.

Sourav Ganguly reacted to his omission from the Indian team for the Ahmedabad Test by not playing for Bengal in a Ranji game against Karnataka. He then reacted to his reinstatement in the Indian team for the Pakistan tour in a similar manner, by NOT representing Bengal in a Ranji game against Gujarat, which commenced a day after his recall. A comparison with others who will be on the plane to Pakistan makes his decision even more mystifying. VVS Laxman turned out for Hyderabad, Sehwag and Gambhir for Delhi, Wasim Jaffer for Mumbai and Zaheer Khan for Baroda, to name just five. Dravid and Tendulkar opted out of their respective teams' matches, but they were merely doing what they had been permitted to do. The BCCI had given players who had appeared in eleven one-day internationals (against Sri Lanka and South Africa) and three Tests (against Sri Lanka) the option to skip Ranji games. Does Ganguly fall in this category? Has he played twelve one-dayers or three Tests in the 2005-06 season?

Even as Kiran More, the Chairman of Selectors, sought an explanation from Ganguly for his absence from the tie against Gujarat, the latter's state association displayed a rather corny sense of humour by stating that the ex-India captain would be available for the remaining Ranji games. Bengal is slated to play its next game from 3rd January to 6th January 2006, and the Indian team is scheduled to depart to Pakistan on the 5th! This obviously means that the Prince of Kolkata isn't going to play the next few games as well.

It will be interesting to see what the team management does with Ganguly in Pakistan. He certainly won't play the first Test, what with Laxman and Yuvraj having batted so well against the Sri Lankans. Dravid, Tendulkar and Sehwag pick themselves, the vice-captain's poor form notwithstanding. That leaves only the second opener's slot. If Ganguly is asked to open with Sehwag, More and co will be lambasted for sending specialist openers Gambhir and Jaffer to Pakistan on a paid holiday.

Having said that, Ganguly might well get a chance and bat as well as he did in England in 1996. While a performance like that might put India on the road to victory, how much of a long-term impact it will have on Indian cricket needs to be assessed. In 1996, Ganguly was 24 and had years of cricket left in him. Today, he is 33, an age at which every cricketer, unless his name is Steve Waugh, starts contemplating the dreaded R-word. Wouldn't it have been better to have included Mohammed Kaif and seen how he fared against the Pakistani pacemen on bouncy wickets? After all, Kaif has atleast a decade of international cricket left in him, and has been billed as one of Dravid's likely successors not only as the pivotal no. 3, but also as captain.

Look what the people living across the Indian Ocean have been doing for the past decade. Australia have notched up almost as many harsh decisions as victories! Dean Jones was among the most exciting batsmen in world cricket when the selectors decided to drop him in the mid-1990s. Their argument was that he got going only when the going got easy. His place was taken by a certain Ricky Ponting. They dropped Ian Healy, the most successful wicketkeeper in the history of Test cricket, after the tour of Zimbabwe in mid-1999, denying him even the privilege of playing his last Test in front of his home crowd at Brisbane. They did not want to keep a certain Adam Gilchrist out of the Test XI any longer. In 2002, they omitted Michael Bevan, the greatest 'finisher' in one-day cricket, from the one-day team itself. Their justification was that he was 'over the hill'. His spot was quickly filled by the likes of Michael Clarke and Andrew Symonds. This happened a year after they had taken the most controversial decision of all; dropping Stephen Rodger Waugh from the one-day side, barely eighteen months after he had led Australia to victory in the World Cup.

These omissions were widely condemned in Australia and elsewhere, but the Australian selectors had the last laugh. Statistics don't lie, nor do traumatized opponents.

It is deeply distressing that not one former Indian cricketer who criticized the selectors for dropping Ganguly from the Ahmedabad Test, has criticized the player himself for skipping two Ranji games. Ganguly had two matches and four innings in which to show his critics that he merited a place among the top XI cricketers in the land. But he chose not to exert himself, and was rewarded with a recall to the national squad! Spare a thought for the cricketers who have been sweating it out for years on the domestic circuit without getting a look-in from the selectors even once. What would they be thinking?

The 'fans' who burnt effigies after Ganguly was ousted, preferred bursting crackers to questioning his decision not to prove himself on the field of play. This is conclusive proof that we Indians just don't love and understand the game enough.

We might as well continue to dream of toppling Australia from the summit. It's going to remain just that; a dream, unless and until we develop the Australian penchant for taking harsh decisions and sticking by them.