It seems paradoxical that Indian cricket should continue to be in a tailspin of disputes controversies despite an upswing in performances in recent months.

Greg Chappell had his assignment as national coach terminated prematurely, but it could reasonably be argued that after the debacle in the World Cup this was in the fitness of things.

Then, skipper Rahul Dravid surrendered the captaincy suddenly — and this despite winning the Test series against England.

Neither the replacement coach nor (Test) captain was easily found. Now, chief selector Dilip Vengsarkar’s tenure appears to be coming to an early end too.

From what has been gossiped and rumoured, Vengsarkar and Chappell were out of sync with each other, but Chappell at the fag end also lost his bonding with Dravid, who in turn fell out with Vengsarkar, who now appears to have fallen out with everybody.

If there is some simple logic in all this, it escapes me, except to say that turmoil and upheaval have become all too frequent.

Perhaps this has to do something with the unwieldy size of the Board, perhaps with too many people trying to be major influences within the establishment, leading to unseemly power struggles.

Old-timers will say that it has never been different in Indian cricket, but that’s precisely the point. These are new times, demanding fresh thrusts and greater transparency to minimize conflict and improve efficiency.

That’s the real challenge before the administration in making Indian cricket the best — and not just the biggest — in the world. The second without the first is meaningless.

***************
Muttiah Muralitharan getting the world record in the first Test was a cinch, but I think the Sri Lankan cricket authorities missed an opportunity to score a point by not inviting Shane Warne to Kandy to witness this event.

It would have been a gesture that had complete sporting legitimacy, and a (necessary) quasi-political dimension thrown in.

Is Murali better than Warne? I reckon the debate has two aspects. For sheer technical virtuosity and aesthetic delight, Warne surely gets ahead, which is he appeals greater to the connoisseurs. But bowling is even more about taking wickets, and Murali’s strike rate makes him peerless.

For instance, Sir Donald Bradman, arguably the greatest cricketer to have stepped on to a field, did not add much to the evolution of batting technique.

Indeed, the argument early in his career was that his grip was all wrong and that he would not survive long on soft English wickets.

Sir Jack Hobbs, by all accounts, was — and remains — the original master who defined the art of batsmanship.

But Bradman’s phenomenal run-getting, his ability to score at a rapid clip and the number of big innings he played despite playing so many shots marked him out as extraordinary — a genius.

That’s how Warne is regularly described, but Murali is no less, so let’s forget the debate.