Indian Cricket From Across the Border

Guest Post by Kamran Wasti

In a watershed moment in Indian cricket history, Saurav Ganguly led his team out to play England at Leeds. Already 1-0, Ganguly faced the prospect of leading a potentially dysfunctional team playing England on a green wicket under the traditional cloudy Headingley skies. Other than having more fast bowlers, the temptation to include the opener Shiv Sunder Das, who had just hit 250 in a side game, was also there. He did not play and has not played since. Instead, the limited but gutsy Sanjay Bangar was included as a makeshift opener as Ganguly played two spinners, won the toss and batted. The rest is history – Bangar rose above his abilities to join Rahul Dravid who played possibly the greatest innings of his career as they defied England bowlers and made things easier for Sachin Tendulkar and Ganguly himself to rack up aggressive hundreds before Anil Kumble spun England out for a landmark Indian victory.

As a university student living in a hostel, Ganguly’s decision to bat first reminded me of Mark Taylor’s call in the 1997 Manchester Test. Taylor reportedly had wanted Shane Warne to bowl last in conditions which seemingly looked ideal for fast-bowling. Like Taylor, Ganguly knew what his strengths were – he put the onus on his batsmen to survive the testing conditions and the spinners, his best bowlers, to do well on a track completely different from the raging turners at home. They delivered.

Ganguly’s era followed by the Rahul Dravid’s and to some extend even Anil Kumble’s was a rare phase in Indian cricket where the team backed its strengths rather than camouflage its weaknesses. As a result, India’s achievements were greater than the sum total of the ability of its players. Other captains, including Mahendra Singh Dhoni, exemplified Samir Chopra highlighted in his very well-written article, India never cultivated aggression, even when they were No. 1.

I remember reading a Kapil Dev interview from 1985 after a farcical tournament at Sharjah where no team Pakistan failed to chase 125 after Imran Khan had taken 6 for 14 against India and England were led by 45-year-old debutant Norman Gifford. India had earlier won the World Championship of Cricket in Australia where Sunil Gavaskar had handled his limited bowling resources brilliantly, as aspect of India’s success surprisingly lost on most critics. In short, India, were having a high in one-day cricket. Kapil Dev, in that interview, announced that his focus area was one-day cricket and that he ‘would like to see who placed the West Indies ahead of India now’. There was one slight irony though in both these tournaments: India had won every single match they had played but had yet to face the West Indies even once. When they finally did, in the three nation Rothman’s Cup in Sharjah later that year, West Indians walked away with an easy win as they did a year later and indeed after the 1987 World Cup, where they won 7-1 in an ODI series. All through this phase, the West Indies were not the ‘official’ World Champions. India, while they were,
never won a single match against them. The point was as lost on Kapil Dev as it is on the Indian team today: It is Test Match cricket that matters.

Consider further examples: Pakistan won the 1992 World Cup. They had a good test team but were not the ideal one-day side. They had a wretched run in one-dayers in the lead-up to their most important test assignment, the 1993 tour to the West Indies. The selectors knee-jerked and replaced Javed Miandad by Wasim Akram, dropped experienced batsmen like Shoaib Muhammad and Salim Malik and packed their side with a host of rookie fast-bowlers. What they had missed out on was that Pakistan had continued to do well in test matches. Predictably, they were blown away by a rampant West Indian side in the tests. Wasim Akram celebrated his return to captaincy with a similarly preposterous take when he took the 1995 tour to Australia as preparation for the World Cup defense as unsurprisingly, Pakistan suffered humiliating defeats. India learnt this lesson the hard way in 1983 when the West Indians routed them at home and are learning the hard way now having exposed completely in England last year and now in Australia. Where has it all gone wrong?

India failed to back its traditional strength which is spin bowling. Regardless of how good Zaheer Khan may be in the eyes of his fans, his prime has seen him take wickets at around 27 or 28 runs per wicket – much better by his standards but hardly world class. Across the border, Waqar Younis averaged 5 wickets per test at 22 till the end of 1998 and even a wretched last 32 tests meant that his final cumulative career average was 23. Wasim Akram, for 7 years, between 1990 and 1997 was the top bowler in the world again averaging 5 wickets per test at 20 and Imran at his peak did the same at 17. On the contrary, India’s most consistent bowler during their prime years was not a fast bowler but the venerable Anil Kumble. During some of India’s greatest moments, like the series wins in Pakistan and the West Indies, it was Kumble who won them matches. The Leeds test, played on a green wicket, was again an Anil Kumble masterclass and even on the 2003 tour to Australia, it was he who took the wickets. Admittedly, they don’t have a replacement for him and you very rarely get an Ambrose for a Garner within a year but didn’t India realize where their strength is? India’s other humiliating tour to Australia was in 1991 – a year earlier they played Anil Kumble on the soft, slow English wickets but did not take him to Australia at a time when Australia had not played quality leg-spin at test level for a long time. This time they played their leg-spinner in England but did not realize that he would be more useful, in fact critical on the bouncy Australian wickets. To cap it up, they failed to realize that R. Ashwin, their spinner, with his 3-test career had done little wrong but critically lacked the controlling support of Pragyan Ojha at the other end where invariably, Ishant Sharma would be playing the benign pie-thrower in Australia. This would never have happened during Ganguly’s times.

In this regard, Ian Chappell has an interesting story - he was being forced to play Terry Jenner and he wanted Ashley Mallet for the Perth test; the next tests were at Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne and he knew that Terry Jenner (I think he was talking about the 1974-5 Ashes) would be able to get a few wickets at Perth and then it would become difficult to justify not playing him on wickets where he expected Mallet, then the best spinner in Australia, to play a crucial role. He had his way and Mallet took a bagful of wickets (considering that it was the signature Lillee-Thomson series). This can never happen with this management. It may not happen with Duncan Fletcher either; remember how he used Ashley Giles and how he kept Monty Panesar out. Panesar had bowl really well against Pakistan in 2006 and yet when they landed in Australia, Fletcher played Giles who had not played for over a year. When Panesar finally played, ironically at Perth :), he immediately got wickets. The best bowlers should always play; Derek Underwood would be deadly when the pitched helped him. When it didn't, he offered great control. And the West Indies used Joel Garner as a stock bowler till 1984. When Roberts retired and Holding became first change, Garner terrorized batsmen all over the world.

A more poignant pointer would be the 1977 Perth Test when Bishen Bedi played three spinners at Perth in a narrow defeat and himself took the only 10-for of his career. The West Indians did not resort to spin in 1983, 1987 or 1994. Nothing exemplifies the importance of this principle that the last test in 1994 when, with a second-string team and no Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh hurried India to defeat through pace on a slow wicket. The lure of fast, bouncy wickets is well-known but India is not a fast-bowling nation – three of India’s best fast bowlers have ordinary records and Zaheer Khan is the worst of the lot, with Kapil Dev, the best of them averaging only fractionally below 30.

When you back your strengths, it automatically means your best bowlers play. If conditions suit, then India’s fast bowlers will always do better; India won the Leeds test in England in 1986 not through some great fast-bowlers: Kapil Dev averaged 40 in England. The match was won by Madan Lal and Roger Binny. They were not great bowlers but were certainly the best available and they delivered when it mattered. Additionally, England fell to Maninder Singh and Ravi Shastri in the second innings. Would one have expected MS Dhoni to make such a move when he didn’t play two spinners even at Adelaide where Nathan Lyon was able to take crucial second innings wickets? I do not think so. But ask Misbah ul Haq if he would play at Perth with just Saeed Ajmal and he won’t.

As far as India’s standard attack is concerned, Zaheer Khan obviously makes the cut till he is fit but I have my doubts about Ishant Sharma. After half a decade, his achievement is 20-odd wickets against a very poor West Indies and a few good spells here and there, including the Ricky Ponting one delivered 4 years ago. After the emergence of Umesh Yadav, Sharma sole contribution perhaps was to keep either a revitalized Irfan Pathan or a second spinner out of the team. Sanjay Manjrekar was clinically honest in his appraisal– Sharma just isn’t good enough. With Yadav around, he is not their second pick. In my book, with the way I saw Irfan Pathan bowl recently, he isn't even the third best and with one spinner around, he should not be in the team anyway.

Ian Chappell and Imran Khan recently criticized India’s obsession with Tendulkar’s hundreds. The same was valid for this number one position as well. The moment India went number one, the team started getting rave reviews with the die-hard fans drawing similitude with Australia’s recent run. Nothing could have been far from reality. As far as I can recall, I have not seen an Indian team win by a two test margin in an overseas series even once (save for wins against Zimbabwe or Bangladesh) since Kapil Dev’s team won in England in 1986. India’s major achievements included 2008 and 2010 wins over Australia: These were pretty misleading too; particularly if you consider the 2010 series, Australians were fielding a side that had been bowled out for 88 and then defeated by a very poor Pakistani team. Compared to the 2004 series that they won in India, not a single player remained save for Ponting and Clarke. The same team was blanked by England. Were Indians really honest about what they were 'achieving'?

Indians beat South Africa in a test but that they had done even during their Greg Chappell days, which are unanimously termed the worst in recent Indian history. Honest supporters would have realized that South Africans were always bound to lose at least one test in an embarrassing manner - they just do it. What was more critical was the way Indians failed to win the third. I was sitting with my friend in Lahore and wondering how can they claim to be number 1 with such an approach? Predictably, an opportunity to win the series was lost. Similarly, the series against the West Indies reminded me of Zaheer Abbas's captaincy when he would draw tests that were easier to win.

Samir Chopra's take on India’s lack of aggression (cited above) is something I have known since I was a child.

Almost all Ranji Trophy finals are decided on the first innings lead. I wonder why? The Pakistani Cricketer used to have a Facts & Figures Quarterly in the mid-80s. My first flavour of Ranji Trophy was through that and I followed the 1986-87 version; I think Arshad Ayub (the off-spinner) hit 174 and it was a high scoring draw with 400 runs being made in the three completed innings. The trend has continued pretty consistently. Even this year, I think one of the teams took some 300-run lead and yet batted on.

For India’s sake, I wish that Tendulkar gets his hundred and not one but two in the triangular. Why two? Because the first one would take him to his 100th and immediately the fans would want the 50th one-day ton too! This is the level of obsession that they have with figures. Even after India’s 4-0 disaster, CricketNext experts were discussing why it was good that Tendulkar did not get his 100th and why it should come in an Indian win. So let us hope he gets those two and then India can look forward to the future.

When England tour India next, don’t expect them to be a cakewalk. They will be wounded lions for this team is willing to learn. For the first time, they have taken a subcontinental defeat seriously and they did manage to win a test under Flintoff – they might just do that again. I just hope Indians are not playing a batting line-up with two 40-year-olds. A younger batting line-up would mean closer encounters but would be a long-term investment. We might get to see Rohit Sharma debut as well!

One good thing that happened for Pakistan after the 2010 England tour was the decision to drop Muhammad Yousuf for good. His best years had come half-a-decade earlier and at 37 his peak years were history. By doing so Pakistan gave an extended run to Asad Shafiq and Azhar Ali who played crucial back-to-the-wall knocks in the recent series against England. Indians should do the same with Tendulkar (after he gets those hundreds – because otherwise you’ll have riots), Dravid and Laxman and, even more importantly, Harbhajjan Singh who is in terminal decline. At 31-32 you expect a spinner to peak but he has surprisingly, consistently grown more defensive and flatter. Unlike Pakistani off-spinners, his normal trajectory was never a flat one but he has continuously followed that route. As a neutral (if you believe me), I saw him bowl what were termed 'magical' 4-over spells in the 2007 T20 World Championship - sickeningly, he was bowling flat yorkers outside leg-stump to prevent batsmen from hitting out. That, in short, sums up his state. He has occasionally produced decent spells, like Ishant Sharma, but that's about it - a regression analysis would show that he in decline and unlikely to rejuvenate. Indians must look towards new spinners and I think dumping Mishra or Chawla was a bad call. Ojha is another good bowler and Ashwin isn't bad either. So basically they have four spinners who can become really good bowlers. They won’t be the Bedi-Venkat-Chadra-Prasanna quartet but they form very good bench strength and a hundred times better than some of the ‘supreme’ fast-bowling talent.

Spot-fixing and sentencing: The injustice of it all

Spot-fixing gets you sent to jail. That much has been established. The world of cricket has now paid witness to a historic trial, which has resulted in three Pakistani cricketers, Salman Butt, Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Aamer being sentenced for their roles in last year's no-ball scandal. This has, besides the usual grim humor, sparked some plaintive complaints who suggest the sentences were a) too harsh "jail time for no-balls?" or b) too unforgiving "Pakistani cricketers live such unimaginably hard lives, they practically had to fix a match or two in order to make it to the next day". Another theme is that this scandal shows cricket administration in a poor light (its hard to know whether to describe this as a theme or as the latest emanation from the We Like Shooting Fish in a Barrel Brigade). Lastly, there are some confused mutterings about cricket being hypocritical: we send fixers to jail but we don't crack down on all these other bad things: sledging or not walking, for instance.

Right. It might be useful to keep things straight. Fixing has long been a scandal in the game, and its continued presence has always threatened to render the game a joke. That this sorry mess went to trial was a relief; it afforded a break from the usual sequence of matchfixing scandal followed by board cover-up (usually carried out by the PCB). The accused had legal representation (some of it expensive and of high-quality); the trial was fair; the legal procedures for due process were followed and sentences have been announced. The three cricketers broke the law of the land (where the games were being staged) and have been punished by the law. There has been no suggestion of railroading, of a kangaroo court, or of any sort of legal impropriety.

So, I'd like to get clear on something: Where is the injustice? Are the laws unfair? Should Great Britain not have certain laws on its books? Should charges not have been filed? Or does the injustice lie in something rather more cosmic: Economic inequality in the world of cricket, which makes Pakistani cricketers do bad things? The unfairness of an incompetently run cricket world bearing witness to an efficient dispensation?

Pakistani Fast Bowler Factory Still Functional

So I woke up this morning to find that a new Pakistani paceman is in town: Junaid Khan, who has taken five wickets against Sri Lanka (at Abu Dhabi; it's a long story, don't ask). Khan has an impressive action, decent pace, and from the little I managed to see, a very good short-pitched ball. Yet again, there is a fast bowler in Pakistani ranks who looks like he has undergone some pretty impressive finishing at fast-bowler-production facility. I have no idea of how it happens again and again, but it has. Make sure you catch some of the test match action that will now be available in this series; fast bowlers are always fun to watch.

A little trivia quiz

Batsman A: Opened for Pakistan

Batsman B: Opened for India

Batsman A's and Batsman B's fathers opened for the same side in pre-Partition India.

Name A and B.

Inshallah, we will win in the Caribbean

Back to bilateral international cricket, that species of the game, which increasingly finds it harder to justify itself if not part of a long-running rivalry. The West Indies and Pakistan square off today and it says something for the fall of West Indies cricket that one is not more excited. For these two teams have provided, in the past, some of the greatest test series of modern times. They are unlikely to provide any of the cricket or the intensity of those series in in the current encounter.

For one thing, the two teams present the cricketing face of two of the most dysfunctional cricket boards in the world and always manage to show traces of those forces that have systematically undermined the game for them. Pakistan still retains some of their flair; the West Indies struggle more than they do to bring their older panache and verve to the pitch.

Even more depressingly for this fan, the Caribbean does not seem to provide the right atmosphere at the ground either. Something has gone missing; and all the music over the PA, the banners, do not help. If anything they serve to remind us of the constructed nature of the excitement.

Still, I'll watch (if willow.tv, who deserve a scathing post on their own, can get their act together). Inshallah, some good cricket might just show up. A new Pakistani quick might decide to make an appearance (as you can tell, I haven't bothered to check team rosters); the West Indies might implode even more spectacularly. Cricket can feature a car-wreck or two as well as anything else.

The summer that went bad

A new post on Pakistan's tour of England is up at Different Strokes

Let the games begin (or so said Ijaz Butt)

Cricket doesn't seem to do much entertainment by way of actual sporting action these days. Rather, we get soap-operas. Here is the latest, for Pakistani cricket, is as usual, convinced of conspiracies. Ijaz Butt has started the fun and games. I'd advise everyone to settle down with the popcorn and peanuts, and enjoy the spectacle.

Cricket without balls: Tariq Ali on Pakistani cricket

Tariq Ali is always an entertaining read (especially when he is writing about the Bhutto family). Here he turns his attention to Pakistani cricket.

Spot-fixing and the slippery slope

Responding to my post on spot-fixing at Different Strokes, my friend David Coady (at the University of Tasmania) pointed out a little side-effect I hadn't thought about:

Seems to me the problem with spot-fixing is that once you've done it once, [you are in] the book-maker's power and have to go along with whatever he proposes, since he's in a position to blackmail you. Police get into a similar position when they accept small gifts from 'grateful' citizens.

The allure of spot-fixing

My take on why spot-fixing is as bad as any other kind of fixing is up at Different Strokes.

Same ol', same ol'

Pakistan. Match-fixing allegations. Bans. Appeals. Overturn.

Add cover-ups, stir.

Serve.

Shades of early Bangladesh in Pakistan again

Pakistan's capitulation(s) at Lord's must rank as some of the worst test batting seen in recent times - it was truly early-Bangla in its awfulness. 74 all out, follow-on, and then 41-4. This is beyond amateur.

Mohammed Aamer you beauty

A little appreciation of Mohammed Aamer has gone up at Different Strokes.

Nice turnaround

Well, well, well. I left home with England at 100-odd for 2, and have returned (after a nice game of tennis on this hot morning) to find England at 210-7 (which has just become 210-8 thanks to Aamer dismissing Prior with a peach of a delivery - jeez, this kid is so good, it's unbelievable). Pakistan are now in a very good position, but they must get these last two wickets quickly if they are to have any chance. If the lead goes past 175, they'll be in Panic Territory (yes, Yousuf is there, but he was at Sydney too).

Pakistani batsmen don't come to the party

Pakistan might have missed the bus, the boat, the train, the whole kit-n-caboodle at the Oval. A lead of 75 sounds good but it is not nearly good enough on a pitch like the Oval's. As usual, no one made a hundred (leave alone a big one), and despite Yousuf's fifty on return and Azhar Ali's brave 92, no one else came to the party (and for the fifth successive innings, Salman Butt failed to play a captain's innings). To make matters worse for Pakistan Alistair Cook has belatedly discovered some form (he is on 74 as I write) and is going to eager to remember and implement a sage bit of advice given to him by his erstwhile Essex mentor, Graham Gooch: when you score, make them big and make them count. And in doing so, he could make things easier for a batting line-up that is collectively looking to get its act together.

Still, when you have a bowling attack like Pakistan's, all is possible. But their batsmen haven't made the bowler's task any easier.

Go Haider!

Pakistan are putting on a fantastic fightback at Birmingham, and this partnership between Saeed Ajmal and Zulqarnain Haider has had a lot to do with it. Haider is heading for a ton, and Ajmal has just compeleted a fifty (and has just been dismissed by Swann). Those that have read about Haider's long road to the top will know that he had harbored ambitions of making a century in his debut test. With only two wickets left for England to get, it will take some doing, but I'll be cheering him on.

Reunification of Pakistan called for?

OK, so 80 all out was bad. Now we have 72. Should West Pakistan and East Pakistan kiss and make-up and start fielding a combined team again? Or would the Bangladeshis object to such a weakening? They'd like the bowling attack, I'm sure? And surely the Pakistanis could do with Tamim? C'mon boys, swallow a little pride, and lets get some backbone out there.

Santo Mierda!

Wow, those two deliveries by Mohammed Aamer straight after tea at Headlingley are among the two best I've seen in test cricket in recent years. It's a pity they were bowled to lower-order batsmen, but that's just a minor blemish.

This kid is something else. I hope someone is putting together a highlights reel for him. Early days but he is already putting together a decent collection.

Doesn't get better than this (could get worse though)

Let's say you are a test batsman, keen to make a strong showing to lock down your position in the batting order, or to regain your form after a slump, or to regain your confidence after a partial return to form. What match situation would you most like to be placed in? Well, I would say the one the Pakistani batsman find themselves in now: it is very early days in a test match, and you have just rolled your opposition for a very low score. Every run you make is a valuable one for the team (thus increasing its psychological value for you), and there is plenty of time to settle down and get comfortable.

Lets stop beating around the bush: if Pakistan can't beat Australia from here, they should consider merging with Bangladesh to form a combined Pakistani team. For old times sake.

One more than 87; still an unlucky number

A sub-100 score in test cricket is always exciting. Especially on the first day of a test match. The first time I saw (actually heard) it happen was when England bowled out India for 96 at Lords in 1979. On this latest occasion, England is again the venue, but the countries involved aren't. It's Australia and Pakistan. I've missed all the wickets to fall so the highlights package promises to be a thriller, especially as it means seeing a lot of Mohammed Aamer.

Addendum: Oh, and presumably, a wicket on which a test side can be bowled out for 88 on the first day of a test match is a "good test wicket cricket"? As opposed to one in which a side is bowled out for 88 on the fifth day of a test match? Just making sure, you know, that I'm still a good user of English-as-she-is-sprechen-in-journalism?