Indispensable --> bad

Every cricket team needs the ultimate talents - the players who are so good they can win matches singlehandedly, and are talismans for their teams. However, being too good can also be detrimental to the team in the long run. Here's how.

Australia have two absolute gems - McGrath and Warne. One of the best pacemen in the world and the best spinner ever have made Australia the champion team of the last few years. However, they are both in the final lap of their careers andAustralia don't have ready replacements. As India proved in 2003-04 Down Under, England in the Ashes and South Africa now in the ODIs, Australia is eminently beatable without these guys. Since they were the best by far, they rendered themselves nearly indispensable, and Australia are now suffering. The Aussies pride themselves on a strong domestic system that keeps a strong bench in place - in fact it was proved when they dropped Mark and Steve Waugh and kept getting stronger! However, McGrath and Warney are in a different league, and being match-winning bowlers, the task is that much tougher for Australia.

India had one such guy not too long ago. A Tendulkar-less India in the 90s was worthless. Indispensable is too meek a word to describe what he was to the team. However, thanks to a revival under Ganguly and Wright, the emergence of Dravid and now Sehwag, and Tendulkar's own injury problems, we do not collectively self-immolate when we see an Indian XI without Tendulkar. Surprisingly, India has managed to handle the transition better than Australia. It helped perhaps that Sachin is not a match-winning bowler - it is probably tougher to replace champion bowlers than batsmen! Or is it?

The West Indies have the one and only Brian Lara. He is so unbelievably good that without him, the Windies are sometimes worse than India at football! The team even with Lara is terrible most times, but you can't blame Lara for that. They have not found a replacement for him yet, and poor times for the Carribeans seem set to continue.

England have never had that problem for a while. Throughout the 90s they were a mediocre team that had county tigers who got injured if there was a strong wind in the area, and had no super-talents. However, that seems set to change - Freddie Flintoff is the mascot of a new-look England team that can hold its own against all comers. Sure, Harmy can bowl fast and KP can bang it - but if Freddie had gone home before the first Test with the rest, India may have had to just turn up to win the series. Can you imagine a Freddie-less England travelling to Australia and winning a Test? No chance! Freddie has reached indispendable status. How England manage him and without him will determine long term success of the team.

Sri Lanka also have two megastars without whom they are a mere shadow - Murali and Jayasuriya. The back up options for Murali are meagre at best, and the line up without Jayasuriya is still not strong enough. Can Sri Lanka find a few players who can fill in the blanks?

South Africa managed reasonably well without Donald - Ntini and Pollock filled the breach nicely, and the team was always blessed with all-rounders who collectively contributed.

I guess the secret lies in the SA/India method - teams should aim to build a bunch of players who can collectively match the talents of their reigning superstar. To get another Tendulkar is a futile search - but by developing Dravid/Laxman/Sehwag, India have enough batsmen to be prepared for the eventuality. Similarly with SA and Donald. Aus have failed to build back-up bowling options who have the experience and ability to step up to the plate.