Oh sure, I meant the crop of players performing well on the park can hide cultural/ institutional problems which only become apparent after the team declines. India reaching number one masked a number of attitudinal issues which only became apparent after they began to struggle.
Much like it took the Ashes shambles for a review to take place here.
What's interesting to me is Dhoni's attitude to it all. He really sounds like a bit of a downhill skier. The test of any skipper is when the team struggles, as Ponting found out and. I doubt Clarke will at times too. They all mostly do eventually. Dhoni has looked bereft of ideas and any inspiration.
I definitely agree with you on all counts. It's hard for a captain to lead when even his place isn't really all that justified in the Test team on cricketing ability.
I think he is a terrible strategy guy and has always has been but he's a good man manager - I think a lot of it is simply the knives coming out when you're doing badly, which is something you'd expect.
There is of course no one else who could be captain so India are stuck with him. I think his greatest asset is that distance that he keeps to try not to let the good things over excite him or the bad things overwhelm him - which was greatly admired when they were doing well but is criticized as not caring or not having enough 'fire in the belly' when you're doing badly.
I think that's why Ganguly was so successful as captain. He wasn't a great Test player either but Indians loved him because he was the first captain in history who was really hated by the opposition because he acted like an arrogant ass - to a people who always thought their teams always were too meek and surrendered and were intimidated too easily when going got tough (not having any imposing fast bowlers was a big part of that of course), he really inspired everyone. I don't know if you know this but before Kapil Dev, Indian fast bowlers were told not to bowl bouncers because they were afraid they'd have to cop some in return when it was their turn to bat. That kind of **** just pissed everyone off. Ganguly wasn't a great tactician either. Rahul, IMO, was a really good tactician but he seemed too cerebral while Ganguly seemed more 'working class'.
Which by the way is completely ironic because Dravid was much more 'working class' background than Ganguly (remember the **** he pulled when he said he was too good to carry drinks for anyone?)
Anyway that's a bit of a rambling answer but I think regardless of the captain, I think there are deep structural issues that were never addressed and frankly (and as I said at the time), I was shocked and elated when India reached #1 despite those issues. Once was enough and I am content as I don't expect them to reach those levels again.
I do think there are some things that are changing, including fielding standards for example, but to counter that, you also have a devaluation of the FC system in favor of high paying IPL. Which if you're just struggling in FC cricket with little hope of the national side, IPL is the only way you can help guarantee your financial stability after you retire - so you can't blame the players for choosing it. I don't know which way it will go.
I know people have been saying this for 30 years (usually old 'get off my lawn' type players) I don't expect India to be really playing many Tests 20-25 years from now. And if Indian money goes out of the TV contracts, it's going to have a major effect on the rest of the countries and their ability to play a lot of Tests too. But hey, everyone else has been wrong about that before. We'll see.