India and England will definitely make World Cup semis: Brian Lara

MUMBAI: The West Indians are dominating the Indian Premier League (IPL) and keeping a watch from close quarters is the prince from the Caribbean himself - Brian Charles Lara. Consistency, says Lara, will be the key if the West Indies are to do well in England.
WORLD CUP SCHEDULE
For now, he believes India and England are among the better equipped teams heading to the World Cup.That and a lot more came up for discussion as the Trinidadian sat with TOI for a comprehensive chat.
Excerpts...
West Indies have individual brilliance and naturally gifted match-winners. It seems like they enjoy playing with each other. Looking good ahead of England?
The West Indies, over the last two World Cups (T20s), have been the surprise element. They've always been up there in the opposing team's mind. There have been too many elements joining the dots, gradually but it's happening. So, I don't think any country walks into a game against the West Indies anymore thinking it's all over before it starts. So, that's the good part. On the other hand, we are capable of colossal failures, too. So, the surprise element works both ways and that's where West Indies needs to keep working. It's amazing that we have players that are the most sought after in the different franchise leagues around the world and can still get it together as a team. We've got two T20 World Cup trophies to show for that. But consistency is the key. Let's see.
Individual brilliance was always there. But there is something else about the new West Indies. It's begun to work as a cohesive unit and that's something that was seen missing for a long time. They're clearly having fun again…
For me, it's a team that's strong at home that builds itself a reputation. From an overall perspective, I expect that to happen for the rest of the things to fall in place. In the West Indies in 1990, we beat England. In 1994, we beat England. In 1998, we beat England. Whenever they came, they got thrashed. Playing away, in 1991 (recollects...) we toured England and drew the series with Viv Richards as captain.
In 1995, we went with Richie Richardson as captain and we drew the series, again. But now England beats West Indies, you know, in the West Indies and in England. So, what I'm saying is that we have to first be strong at home. We have to be strong where we are. We know what the conditions are and then when you get that confidence you're able to travel well. So, I am not seeing as yet that we want to be that team that can travel to India, travel to England, travel to Australia, play against these countries and beat them, just yet. I'll say, start with the series against India, when they travel to the West Indies in July, August.

It's clear that new generation West Indies cricketers have embraced shorter formats. And there's a healthy choice available. So, once players have had their fill, it's easier to see who's got the hunger left for Test cricket. Is that a factor that's helping?
Yes. We've got a lot of examples of guys who have made it big in the cricket arena, but haven't represented West Indies in Test cricket. A good example might be a Kieron Pollard. He prefers T20 over the 50-over game and 50 overs over Test cricket. He feels quite comfortable in that space. That is something that we would not dream about when we were kids. When I was growing up, you wanted to play for the West Indies Test team. That's what we talked and dreamt about. So, there is a significant barrier where guys are saying: 'You know what, I am happy on this side of the wall, happy playing this cricket. This is what I want to play'.
We have seasoned guys who are not interested in Test cricket and will represent or want to represent the West Indies in white ball cricket alone. Yes, so that's good. But what is also very healthy is that we are beginning to recognise that we have a lot of guys who are still interested in playing Test cricket and there's that bit of clarity emerging.

Jasprit Bumrah is classic example. Made his mark in T20s. And he's now among the top bowlers in Test cricket...
Oh yeah, Jasprit Bumrah. Virat Kohli. Chris Gayle (yes, he's 39 now). Chris has two triple centuries (in Test cricket). He has represented West Indies in all forms of the game. So I'm almost sure that he has great appreciation for his Test career as he has for his limited over exploits. Look at a guy like AB de Villiers. I feel that due to the lack of competitive cricket even in the Test arena, he kind of told himself: okay, I want to preserve myself for these (T20) leagues. I want to preserve myself so I can perform for RCB (or any other T20 team). Whatever his decisions, but I just feel that he lost a little bit of that competitive edge (in Test cricket) that resulted in a shift of mind.
Picking and choosing matches. Was it a comfort zone that players like you, Sachin and top cricketers during your time never got to enjoy?
You still have to be selected; you still have to be playing your best cricket to be picked. Preserving your physical side is important. You know, the minute I stepped away from Test cricket and even playing for West Indies, I remember being involved in the ICL and in the middle of all the talk about you know, how you are going to be paid so well. But the fact is that as exciting as this (ICL) prospect was (financially), I had literally lost the passion to play the game. In this next chapter, when I realised West Indies was no longer my focus, for weeks or months, I kept asking myself what am I doing? So, for me, I had only one choice and I'm very happy and thankful that I was able to play Test cricket for 17 years for the West Indies.
You did play one 20-over game for the West Indies. The 50 over game that partially got washed away and umpires reduced it to 20 overs…
Yes, that was in Trinidad. Rain had been persistent and after that the umpires said we can fit in just a minimum, which was 20 overs each. I was like, what a farce! What can you get out of this? Now, today, that same cricket match (20 overs each) has been packaged and is the most amusing event in the world.

Today, if a cricketer says, 'listen, I am not interested in playing red-ball cricket. I would like to stick to T20' - I know a couple of established cricketers who completely believe this line of thought - does that need to be looked down upon?
No, no. Of course not. I think it's somebody's choice and guys, you know, are made up a certain way. It's got to be a professional choice and nobody can be forced to do something he or she doesn't want to do. Only if a cricketer wants to seriously pursue Test cricket should he follow that path. Stick to your choice, whatever it is, but stay true to it.
The World Cup is in England - a country where you've scored tons of runs. Can you share a checklist that batsmen ought to keep in mind when playing a World Cup there?
English conditions are something you've always got to be wary of. What is the summer going to be like - is it going to be a dry summer? Too hot? Overcast? Last year, England was very hot. England can be tricky, which is great. When I played in England, I enjoyed it. One day you wake up and it's a green track and conditions are overcast. The next day, it's bright and you're beating ball and suddenly everything is easy. I think the key to performing in England is - knowing your game, knowing your limitations, and playing accordingly, assessing conditions very quickly. The key part of playing there is knowing that conditions may change quickly. You're batting under a cloudy sky, on a damp pitch and suddenly a couple of hours later, it's all dried out, the sun is out and things turn better. England is all about how quickly you assess that. So, the other way of looking at it is, it's all about knowing your own game. One thing is for sure: If it's going to be a dry summer, pitches are going to be very receptive to good batting.
But wickets for white ball matches in England lately have been some of the flattest ones. Totals of 350-plus appear like just another day at work…
It's the game that has evolved. Batsmen are a lot more enterprising now. There was a time when 250-275 used to be a winning total. Now, you're looking at 350-plus as a safe target. Look at it this way, there are greater chances of my record of 400* being broken now because of the way batsmen are constantly looking to break barriers. An individual score of 200-plus in ODIs now seems so gettable. When Saeed Anwar got that 194 in Chennai (against India), it seemed like such one-off then.

T20 strategies are largely responsible for that change in the 50-over format. No?
Of course. That's why the player of the 2019 World Cup will be a far different kind than the player of the 1999 World Cup. Today's batsmen are slightly different to the ones from before. A good example of that is myself, a Sachin Tendulkar or a Ricky Ponting. At the very end of our careers, T20 cricket came about and we didn't understand and appreciate all of it. During our time, in 50-over cricket, we had time to get set and even if we took 25 balls to score 10 runs, towards the end, we still had time to score a 100 runs in less than 100 balls. That was because we were set and we could dominate. That's how minds worked. I remember, I was the captain of the West Indies (in 1999) and our team plan was to see off the new ball first, build an innings, set it up nicely and then getting to 275-odd would mean getting to a good score. Look at how things stand now. Get that 100 in the first 10 overs, build the momentum early.
What do you reckon will be the key to succeed in England?
Remember one thing: the key battle in cricket is always the mental battle. That's something you cannot show. But it's there. Always. Simmering. Playing on your mind. The team that wins that, wins half the battle. You see guys with average technique score tons of runs and guys with amazing techniques going nowhere. That's because mentally they're not there.
If you had to pick four semifinalists for this World Cup, who would you back?
Normally, I'd like to make my choices after watching all teams play their first one or two games. But since you're asking, well, England? Normally, I'd never risk backing them because they've never failed to lose that one important game (laughs). But this team looks good. So, them and India - two teams I believe will definitely be in the semifinals.
Can't say the same about the rest of the teams. West Indies will have to play some consistent cricket. We've shown that we can beat England or India. We can beat any team on our day. But then we lose against a Bangladesh or an Afghanistan, and we let it all go away. So, that's what West Indies have to avoid. I would love to see them get to the semifinals.
They've got what it takes...
They've still not announced their squad. I hope politics is kept away. Who's in favour, who's not. I'm not someone who understands those intricacies. But my bit is, if an Andrew Russell doesn't make it to the World Cup squad (just an example), I'd like to know why? Those are the kind of things that West Indies needs to keep simple. But getting back to your question, India and England are going to the semifinals and from there, let's see how it goes.
And Australia? Steve Smith and David Warner are back. Warner looks like he's hungry for a lot of runs…
I think those two guys have paid for the unfortunate situation. I sense that the Australian dressing room would not have gone in this direction and left them alone. Those two guys are top performers. They are coming back now as players. Good. I think if they were coming back as captain and vice-captain, I think the guys who brought Australian cricket back to some sort of normalcy would have a problem at it.
But now, they're coming back into the fold as being just members of the team. And I think that is a positive because I think each and every single member of the team now has a great appreciation and respect for them. They'll be selected, all right. But they'll have to start performing immediately because there's no time. That's where the challenge lies.

You mentioned Andre Russell. A name that comes to mind from the India camp, who's not going to the World Cup, is Rishabh Pant. Have you seen enough of Pant to form an opinion?
I think he's a good player, very aggressive player. He is someone who can change the course of the game within a very short period of time. But in saying that, the liability he carries needs to be looked at too. He can put the team in a kind of a situation in the blink of an eye. That game where Delhi Capitals (versus SRH) folded up and lost seven or eight wickets when it was around less than a run a ball required. That dismissal (of Pant) was worrying.
It's good that he's carefree, he's got the shots. But sometimes, you need to have a responsible head on the shoulders, too. I'm sure he'll learn. It's good to see how these youngsters are and have great passion for shots and everything but sometimes, level-headedness is what matters. Much was said about Pant but I'm surprised nobody mentioned Prithvi Shaw's name for the World Cup.
Pant at No. 4?
I think India needed more experience at that position.
You mention Shaw. You clearly seem impressed…
Yeah, I saw his 100 (Test debut) against us and it was amazing. I saw his 99 too, in the IPL, which was flashy. But the thing is, if you get to 99 and your team is cruising, get a 100. These little things, you know, you hope that he learns. But that aside, he's an amazing, amazing talent and has a huge future in front of him.
What do you make of Jasprit Bumrah...
Yes, I've been watching him. He seems to a knowledgeable young fellow. The way he bowls, what he tries to do, the deliveries he has - they all convey as if he always carries a perspective of how he wants to go about. We're talking about a guy who's consistently bowling 140-plus and at all times, comes across as someone who knows what he's doing. Trying to set batsmen up.
Indian fast bowling is looking up...
When I played against India, Javagal Srinath was the only guy who had any sort of pace that batsmen had to worry about. This is a new breed of Indian fast bowlers and they've been very impressive. That's because they're coming through a system that has been put in place. Fast bowlers don't happen to teams overnight. They don't just wake up or are picked from the streets to roll their arm over. These guys have gone through a system where all aspects of bowling have been catered to. India had begun putting a system in place. The results are showing.

Okay, a question that's there on everybody's mind all the time. In the pantheon of batting greatness, where do you see Virat Kohli as of now?
Oh, he's already there. Right up there with the best. He's a run machine. I mean, you look as his numbers. They're unbelievable. And the outlook he brings to the game. By the time he's done, we can only imagine where he'll be. For a guy who spends significant amount of time getting himself ready in terms of fitness and discipline, it's phenomenal.
Discussions surrounding Virat's obvious greatness usually end up in comparisons with Tendulkar and then it further boils down to the quality of attacks that Tendulkar faced. Is that kind of an argument tenable?
I can see why that happens. Imran, Wasim, Waqar, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Donald. We had our share of bowlers to face. But Virat can't be held guilty of that, you know what I mean. Again, I don't believe that bowling is that bad now. The fact is that he's an unbelievable player and a great asset for the game and Indian cricket. If everybody looked up to Sachin Tendulkar, it was because of his determination to surpass everybody and that came with the longevity. That aside, the other thing about Sachin is he scored runs all around the world in all conditions. Those are things, I'm sure, Virat takes very seriously. Those are going to be the catalysts as he goes about seeking greatness.
Are you a fan of technology?
Yes. I am. I'm not worried about the 30 seconds or one minute that gets lost when consulting technology. Human errors can cost a lot, be it any sport. The other night, I was watching a game of football where Manchester City needed to score a goal, and they scored it and when it was reviewed, it was shown that somebody was off-side. Now, that was heart-breaking but that is what technology is. A guy is given out edging the ball, technology says he didn't edge it, I'll say 'good, now go back and bat'. So yeah, technology is something I love and support.
So are you saying do away completely with the human element?
No. I'm not saying that.
Because what you're saying suggests the game needs to depend thoroughly on technology because it's there, available...
Human element is good. It's important. There's a charm to it. That's traditional. Umpires don't make a ton of mistakes. I'm saying, the ones they make need to be corrected immediately. I believe the balance needs to be there.
So, what you're saying is that if technology is available, put it to optimum use wherever possible. That Mumbai Indians versus Royal Challengers game comes to mind. Lasith Malinga's no-ball that should've been called…
That should've been called by the TV umpire right away. Had it been a dismissal he'd have done that. That shouldn't have happened. I'm saying, the TV umpire has to look at every single ball. Because every ball could change the course of game.
Until the decade gone by, cricket's reach far west went as far as the Caribbean. Lately, and more assertively going forward, USA is seen as cricket's next big destination. As someone with greater proximity to the Americas, what's your take?
The diaspora there makes it an exciting prospect. A few years ago, I was in the US with Sachin Tendulkar and Shane Warne for the Masters' tournament. It was, I think, a 35,000-capacity stadium and Sachin being Sachin, I think 34,500 had come to see him and I think 34,900 were Indians (laughs). That's a good idea of what cricket in America is about. I think the game needs to be promoted in schools. Once you learn the intricacies of cricket, it's a far more exciting game than, let's say, baseball. But one thing is for sure, if cricket has to grow, it has to go to America.
IPL has changed the way bowlers are perceived in white-ball cricket. They look like part of a colossal package where batsmen are the one who need to do the entertaining…
Tell me something… you think a Wasim Akram or a Curtly Ambrose depended on surfaces. I think batsmen have started adapting. Bowlers need to do that quickly too. I won't deny that crowds come in to watch sixes. They come in to watch batsmen. But if you had a good fast bowler upping the game for you, who wouldn't give that a priority? The bowler has to up that game now. You saw that Rabada super over (DC vs KKR). Well, who wouldn't watch that?
Are you enjoying your IPL commentary stint in the 'dugout'?
Oh yes. The dugout experience is amazing. When you go on TV in India and you talk cricket and people take time out, look and listen to you, you know, it's a huge audience. You know, that audience is very knowledgeable about cricket to love cricket right? When you're on TV in India, you feel like you are at the epicentre of the game. I wouldn't feel the same anywhere else in the world. So, it's a great experience.