Much as I approved of the optimism in Eleven Reasons why India will win the World Cup (May 17), here are several reasons why the story showed very low journalistic standards.
Of course, bookies make errors and one hopes India bucks the gloomy trend, even now. It’ll only happen though if Azhar’s Angels display rather more pride in their work than your correspondents did.
Devangshu Datta, New Delhi
Your cover story was a shallow attempt to bolster the confidence of those keen on a favourable outcome for India. It was in keeping with the Indian tendency to look at the brighter side of things hoping that the darker side wouldn’t blind us.
Anand Srinivasan, Bombay
Forget the Cup, it was good to see Outlook do a positive story for a change. It was fair to put Azhar on the cover, though Gavaskar & Co ruined whatever esteem he had by demanding Jadeja as captain. He was touted as a Viagra for the team as if it was impotent. How come this issue wasn’t raised before the team was announced? Why didn’t anyone say anything when Azhar won so many tournaments in ’98?
K.S. Satanand, Hyderabad
It seems your last cover was published with the sole intent of selling a few more Outlook copies. It’s not that India can’t win the World Cup, but the reasons you cited were baseless. For one, no one can single-handedly win the Cup, not even Sachin. And while Ganguly and Dravid might be talented, they wilt under pressure as in the series against Pakistan. Also, compared to the ’83 team, the current one doesn’t have quality all-rounders, or a wicketkeeper like Kirmani who was equally good with the bat, or bowlers who could chip in a few runs. And bowling continues to be one of our weak points. As an Indian I sincerely hope India will bring back the World Cup but if wishes were horses...
Jasmine Rupani, on e-mail
As an alternative to your story, I say New Zealand will win. The key being the medium pace all-rounder, Sri Lanka and West Indies will struggle. SA will start well but could crumble in crunch situations. Familiar conditions may propel England somewhat, but it will succumb to its overall mediocrity. Zimbabwe could cause a few flutters—their bowling being an unknown quality in England. India, frankly, has a decent chance with its attack being just right and its top-order batting sound. Unfortunately, the captain is the worst in world cricket today. Pakistan appear devastating but their batsmen will be found out in England, Inzamam apart. The Miandad fracas and the Sarfaraz episode will also take its toll. Australia will be the biggest disappointment, as in ’92. Their team is on the decline. The team to watch therefore is New Zealand. They have the best batting depth among all sides, genuine medium-pace all-rounders, perfectly equipped bowlers and thorough familiarity with the conditions. Yet, they’re unfancied, which suits them perfectly. With a little innovation they can easily be the champions in ’99.
Tra Lala, on e-mail
I think your cover story showed one thing—the lack of good cover stories. I’m no spoilsport but I can give you several reasons why India won’t win the World Cup—hype by magazines like yours; Sachin has to fail at least once; we call Robin an all-rounder but others have Pollock; we have a team, but no team spirit. Hopefully we should make it to the Super 6...so that Aiwa loses at least some dough.
Bharadwaj V.T., Bangalore
