Tuesday, February 07, 2012

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.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Blogger Sathish said...

The problem was India went into the series with an inexperienced bowling attack. They had already dropped Harbhajan and Umesh was a certainity in the XI as he was the only one who could bowl 140+. Between Ashwin & Ojha - Ashwin was always the first choice due to his variations and batting ability. So between Ohja & Ishant they went in with Ishant due to his earlier experience in Aus. Fine. But this didn't work for us. So Ohja should have been in the XI atleast for the Perth or Adelaide (For Ashwin Or Ishant). Even with the available bowlers in a match there was no Plan B to take wickets. Same was the case with Rohit Sharma. They could have easily tried him at Perth for Sehwag/Gambhir/Laxman. Finally they rested(??) Sehwag for 1st ODI where his 30+ scores would have been more useful. Now Rohit & Ohja need to wait another 3 years to showcase their potential in Aus against Aus. Only MSD & Fletcher can explain the logic behind these decisions.

9:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so well written .. and excellent analysis.. good examples..i agree. there is not a systematic approach to achieving objectives of winning consistently.Lot of ad-hoc ism in selection, in areas of focus etc.I wish we had a leader in BCCI and the team management. Dhoni could probably take a little break to introspect the future of what he wants to achieve.

12:12 PM  
Blogger Mahek said...

That's quite a detailed post, and I agree with most of it. I met Samir a few months ago and we talked about how we haven't tried to win as much as we should have.

But here's the thing. This isn't just about Dhoni. You might think things were different under Ganguly but they really weren't. We declared way too late at Sydney under him, threw in the towel at Jamaica, lost a home series to Australia (He even faked an injury at Nagpur). We did the same under Dravid (Oval) and Kumble (Bangalore). So no, I don't think the collective has never been more than the sum of its parts. And yes, our First Class tournament is more outdated than Los Del Rio.

You mentioned Misbah. Well, Pakistan played the lone spinner (And Mohammad Hafeez) in both their tests in NZ last year when he was captain. I wouldn't be surprised if one of Ajmal or Rehman don't play in the series in South Africa later this year.

2:04 PM  
Anonymous Kamran said...

@ Sathish Realistically, Indians, after their lead up over the past few years, stood little chance of winning in Australia. What they could have done was to play their best team though. Ashwin and Ojha are okay bowlers but Harbhajjan was correctly dropped as he does not even try to take wickets any more in tests. I would have taken the leg-spinner with me. Danish Kaneria took a bagful of wickets in 2004 and again put Pakistan on course to victory at Sydney two years ago before Kamran Akmal's wicketkeeping and Yousuf's captaincy did not let him complete the job. Your own Anil Kumble had done quite well in both 2003 and 2007. Even Chandana, the Sri Lankan leg-spinner had done well over there. The key is to understand that overseas leg-spinners don't run through sides in Australia; they would bowl long fruitful spells instead. Mishra is a good bowler and bowls a googly too. It was unfortunate that he was pitted against a rampant English batting line-up on soft wickets in cool weather; Australia would have seen him bowl on hard bouncy pitches under bright sunshine instead and with his recent overseas exposure, he would have done better. But you pointed out well that Ashwin's ability to bat got him the nod. In short, Dhoni did not decide on bowling ability but on a bowler's ability to bat which is ridiculous. The point is that that if five batsman fail, the sixth won't do a bit. India had those six plus Dhoni and Ashwin - some defensive thinking.
Regardless of how poorly Laxman or Sehwag were doing, nobody was going to drop them once you took them there. You develop Plan Bs not on a series-to-series basis - good teams build them in their design. After the departure of Larry Gomes, West Indies never dropped Gus Logie. He had an ordinary record but if you pick out his high scores, they were invariably made when others failed like at Lord's in 1988.

10:47 PM  
Anonymous Kamran said...

@ Mahek
I think you are being a bit harsh with Ganguly - he basically captained for around 5 years after taking over from Tendulkar (who had lost 5 tests in a row). In my book, even at Sydney, he was technically doing the right thing: He made Kumble bowl last on a wicket which did not break up as much and Australia played well too. he had already bowled a lot in the first innings - you didn't want to kill him by bowling 100 overs on a trot.

Australians were without McGrath and Warne and Lee and Gillespie were half-fit. Indian batsmen, to their credit, did not waste this opportunity but yes Oval and Bangalore were ridiculous.

In my book, usually, if you set a 300-run target to be achieved at 3.5 runs an over on the last day, you are giving yourself a 60-40 chance and the opposition has sufficient reason to take risks.

Unlike Pakistanis in the 1980s, who mastered the art of declaring correctly but ensuring draws by dropping catches, Indians had no such problems with their fielding.

As for Misbah, trust me - If Pakistan don't have their next good fast bowler, they'll be going with two spinners even on a green Durban wicket. They simply won't have a choice.

10:59 PM  
Blogger Mahek said...

Oh I didn't mean Ganguly should've enforced the follow on, I meant we didn't give ourselves enough time to bowl them out. Some shoddy umpiring from Bucknor didn't help & Parthiv missed a couple of chances, but it's for this very reason I'd rather declare 10 overs too early than 10 overs too late.

The best example of just how conservatively we play is Ashwin deciding to block when we needed 2 to win off 2 balls with 2 wickets in hand in the Mumbai test. We'd won the series 2-0, Ashwin had scored a 100 in the first innings & looked really comfortable in the second. Yet he decided to ensure he didn't get out so that it would be impossible for India to lose. It really says something that a first innings centurion wants to ensure no defeat in a dead rubber when victory is just one stroke away.

I think almost all international captains go by the book these days and Misbah is definitely one of those. It remains to be seen what Pakistan do in South Africa, I don't know why Cheema and Junaid are ahead of Riaz in the pecking order though.

12:08 AM  
Blogger Aditya Shukla said...

Good post Samir. I hope Rohit Sharma delivers for Team India. http://streetcricketer.tumblr.com/

8:29 PM  
Anonymous livescore said...

Wow, it is great and comprehensive post you have share i ever read in my life regarding Indian cricket, but unfortunately nowadays team India is doing they worst.

2:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good blog. Can u visit mine? It;s also about cricket.

5:32 AM  
Blogger Kay said...

Remember this? I just wish they had been living in the real world. It would have been a cracker of a series.

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!

2:05 AM  
Anonymous muhammad asghar said...

goood blog a fantastic post and also a great for Cricket lovers.

See that blog its also about cricket updates


10:01 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home