Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!

Melbourne Test – Review

Australia beat India by 337 runs to take a 1-0 lead in the Border Gavaskar Trophy on Day 4 at Melbourne. The story of Day 4 of the Boxing Day Test was much like that on Days 1, 2 and 3 – Australia dominated. India were outclassed with both bat and ball in this game.

Reports will suggest that the Indian bowlers did well. But on a suspect wicket, Australia managed 40.82 runs per wicket (694/17 in the match) against the Indian bowlers at almost 4 runs per over. How many sides have won Test matches after conceding those many runs? When India batted they encountered a bowling and fielding unit that was relentlessly top class. The Indian batsmen never mastered Stuart Clark and Brett Lee, and Mitchell Johnson was able to bowl well enough to keep the batsmen quiet. The slow outfield further accentuated the difference in fielding level between the two sides. The current Australian side is possibly the greatest all round fielding side in Test history. Symonds, Clarke, Hussey and Ponting are all world class fieldsmen in the Jonty Rhodes class. Bradley Hogg is not far behind. Brett Lee is probably the finest fieldsman amongst the fast bowlers of the world. Mitchell Johnson is probably a better fielder than any Indian barring Yuvraj Singh and Sachin Tendulkar. It’s easy for Australia to hide Stuart Clark in the field. Only Tendulkar and Yuvraj amongst the Indian top order have an eye for the quick run comparable to any of the Aussies.

These are just all the generic realities which were in evidence in this Test. In addition to all these shortcomings, India’s most dependable batsman overseas finds himself in a terrible bind form wise. He can get the ball off the square. What’s more, India have asked him to open the batting! This gets him stuck, and also gets the other batsman stuck. Whats more, with his tenacious desire to not throw his hand away, he prolongs the agony for himself and his side, and allows the opposition to get on top. Any bowler will tell you that the best possible thing to do is to bowl at a batsman who is out of form and can’t get the ball off the square. Further, they are uncertain of their bowling combination. Harbhajan Singh is not quite the bowler he once was. RP Singh has looked ineffective. Further, they lost an important toss on an iffy wicket (more about the wicket later).

This series is looks like it will go exactly as every other home series under Ricky Ponting’s captaincy has gone for Australia – an easy triumph. Ponting has not lost a single Test match as captain in Australia. This is now his 4th home season at the helm. What do the visitors do from here?

The Indian strategy was always going to be to try and stay with the Aussies, especially in the first innings and to wait for a moment to sneak into a potentially winning position somewhere. They have failed to do so at Melbourne. The turning point was Tendulkar’s wicket at 3/120 in the first innings. He was batting like a bomb and had managed to overcome the early advantage which the Aussies had achieved thanks to Rahul Dravid and Wasim Jaffer’s inability to rotate the strike (the quality of the Aussie fielding had something to do with this). Had he gone on to make a hundred, India might have accomplished their task of competing on the first innings. The key advantage of competing on the first innings, is that it puts the Aussies under pressure at the business end of the game. They would not put in the same clinical world beating flawless show that they did today if they had the pressure of the scoreboard and a realistic threat of defeat. India have to find a way to compete on the first innings.

Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman all look in reasonably good form. Yuvraj Singh and Mahendra Dhoni never got going, so no real conclusion can be drawn as to their position. Rahul Dravid is obviously struggling and his cause has not been helped by him being asked to open the batting. Wasim Jaffer has had one of his characteristically ordinary Test matches. Going by his track record since his comeback against England in 2006, he ought to make runs in atleast one innings at Sydney. Sourav Ganguly is batting too low in the batting order given his terrific form. VVS Laxman is not quite the batsman he was in 2003-04, and may not be suited to number 3. In fact, even in 2003-04, Laxman’s success came at number 5.

As i see it, India have only 2 realistic options going into the Sydney Test, given their squad and the current form of their players. In batting order, these would be

Jaffer, Karthik, Ganguly, Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Yuvraj, Irfan, Kumble, Zaheer, Harbhajan

OR

Jaffer, Karthik, Ganguly, Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Irfan, Kumble, Zaheer, Harbhajan, Ishant

The latter option would be a bold move – playing 5 bowlers, giving India a chance to compete with the ball, because let’s face it, India are not going to win too many Test matches conceding 41 runs/wicket. There are those who will argue however, that playing 5th bowler who is not exactly Wasim Akram won’t be much use from the wicket taking point of view. They would be making a good point.

RP Singh has not looked threatening and doesn’t quite possess the required variety of arrows in his quiver to make him a truly threatening bowler in conditions where the ball doesn’t seam all day. Besides, there is a sameness to the Indian attack with Zaheer and RP playing in the same eleven.

Harbhajan Singh’s form has been patchy, but India will just have to hope he comes good. It can’t do his confidence any good that the Australian left handed opening pair were able to sweep him against the break without once lobbing the ball up in the air. That he was bowling without a short fine leg, suggests that he didn’t expect the traditional miscue either. If the Sydney wicket is like it is reputed to be (Melbourne did not behave like it was supposed to), he might get an opportunity to come good. Speaking of wickets, if a Melbourne like wicket had been offered in India, one can imagine the furore that would have ensued against BCCI.

Using Ganguly at number 3 would break up the string of right handers which the Australians are able to bowl at in the current line up. Besides, he’s in form and has hinted more than once that he would prefer to bat higher up the batting order.

It would however be a mistake in my view to persist with Rahul Dravid opening the batting, especially given his current form. I suspect though, that India will persist with him. There is no pressure to leave him out of the playing eleven, not when the available option is Virender Sehwag, whose form if anything has been even more woeful. If Sehwag has to be played, he will be played at the expense of Wasim Jaffer. Sehwag brings his off breaks to the side in addition to the possibility of a swashbuckling, aggressive century.

The magnitude of this defeat dictates significant changes for Sydney. It may be too late from the point of view of the series by the time the Perth Test comes around. It remains to be seen how the Indian team management reacts. Will they gamble with Sehwag? Or will they go back to the tried and tested combination of Jaffer-Karthik and leave Dhoni out? Do they consider leaving Dhoni out to be an option at all?

Whatever the answer to those questions may be, the great lesson of the Boxing Day Test is that Australia are as world class as ever. Their batting is as strong as ever, as is their bowling depth. Their Test match fielding is unparalleled. All in all, they are the best team in the world by a long margin.

Well played Australia…..

Melbourne Test – Day 3

India’s only hope of ending Day 3 on even remotely even terms with the hosts was to bowl them out cheaply in their second innings. At 4/161, India seemed to have made some progress in this direction. Andrew Symonds came along and produced a quick fire 42 which reduced India to waiting for the declaration. India could not find their Stuart Clark – someone who could run through the lower middle order. Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh toiled manfully as India hoped to delay the Australian declaration. It was all in all a difficult day. When bowlers toil manfully, it usually means they’re fighting a losing battle. The bowling attack has been bested. India showed in the first innings of the match that they had the ability to keep the Australian batting in check. However, the manner of the Australian dismissals indicated that the Aussie batsmen contributed to the dismissals as much as India’s bowlers. When India batted, their batsmen were bested by the quality of Clark and Lee. Tendulkar and Ganguly apart, all the other Indian batsmen were beaten and dismissed. At the end of Day 3 of the boxing day test, it is fair to say that India have been outclassed with both bat and ball.

Australia added to the “aggression” myth by declaring with 8 overs to spare on the third day – a useless declaration in my view, with two full days remaining. These decisions seem to be mainly for public consumption. They reinforce the perception of a relentless juggernaut, not willing to concede an inch. If it was simply a case of wanting to win the Test match, they could have batted tomorrow until they got bowled out and still won it. After all, is anybody arguing that they may bowl India out in 188 overs but not in 150? If the declaration was supposed to have surprised the Indian batsmen, im almost certain that it didn’t. India knew at tea or even earlier that such a declaration was a possibility. Further, given Rahul Dravid’s terrible form, would it not have been better to declare overnight and let Dravid walk out tomorrow with the prospect of having to survive an entire day, without giving him the benefit of an easier target – that of having to bat out 8 overs? As it happened, he walked out, took first strike and played out the day.

Whatever happens tomorrow, what one hopes for is that India are able to make the Australians sweat for their wickets. Test matches are rarely won in 4th innings run chases which are the result of declarations. In fact, the only time in recent years when this has been accomplished successfully was when Graeme Smith made a quixotic declaration on the last day in desperate quest of a series leveling victory. Ricky Ponting on that occasion played a brilliant innings (in his 100th Test match) to win the game for Australia. So chances of an Indian victory are slim.

My hopes, strangely enough, are pinned on Rahul Dravid. He’s out of form, low on confidence and has looked quite ordinary at the crease. He is a great batsman however, and i want him to do well very badly. It would be a shame if he lost his place in the side if India lost tomorrow itself. He has shown a lot of character in resigning from the captaincy, accepting that he was not enjoying the job and that it had had an adverse effect on his batting. This is of course in sharp contrast to his predecessor who was clearly in denial when he was dropped in 2005. To this day, Ganguly maintains that “the manner of his dismissal” was not right. This of course begs the question – how would he have liked to have been brought face to face with reality? It would be a shame if Rahul Dravid were unable to find second wind from somewhere and come back from the brink. He is not given to such dramatic streaks. His has been a steady, relentless ascent to the pinnacle of batsmanship. He deserves a break.

It is with this naive hope that events will break in India’s and Dravid’s favor, that i look forward to Day 4 of the Melbourne Test. On Dravid’s accomplished shoulders lie the hopes of India in this series opener. They may be out of rythm right now, but they are also best suited to guide an Indian revival. There is on other suggestion. The in-form left handed Ganguly at number 3 would test the Australian bowlers and given them the challenge of bowling to a left hand right hand bowling combination. Promoting in form batsmen to number three has traditionally worked for India in the past as Ganguly will know.

India have been well and truly beaten so far in this game. With the weather set fair for days four and five, an inconclusive result is out of the question. Australias batsmen looked untroubled against the Indian bowling today, and India will take heart from that.

Melbourne Test Day 2

Day 2 began promisingly for India, with Zaheer Khan dismissing the last Aussie batsman for the addition of only six runs to the overnight score. Still, 343 was a good total. The moment of truth arrived when Rahul Dravid and Wasim Jaffer walked out to bat for India to face Brett Lee, Mitchell Johnson and Stuart Clark.

This was the first of India’s gambles for this Test, with a scratch opening combination. They had discontinued the Karthik-Jaffer combination. Karthik had struggled against Pakistan and a fifty in the middle order on the last day at Bangalore did not help him. This shift to Jaffer and Dravid as i wrote before was a risk compared to the tried and tested Jaffer-Karthik combination. If it worked, the reward would be significant too. Australia tend to be at the best when the ball is new, and one school of thought would say that this should be tackled by making the batting order deeper, rather than by propping it up at the top. Another would say that India should play the strongest possible opening pair to tackle them head on.

As it turned out, a woefully out of form Rahul Dravid was faced with an Australian opening bowling pair in crackling form. An inform Dravid might have taken to Mitchell Johnson, who bowled an impeccable line (to his field), but in his current form, with his judgement and confidence outside off stump in tatters, he was reduced to leaving everything he could. When he did try to attack, he played an missed many times, was dropped at third slip once, was caught at second slip off a no ball once, and had one successful stroke for two, and that too only when Johnson came round the wicket. It was as good as batting blind for Dravid. Sadly, he seemed to set the tone for the rest of the innings. There is much criticism about the tactics – that he wasn’t looking to push singles, but i don’t think it was a matter of him not trying, it was basically a matter of him not being able to. What we saw was a perfect storm created by the big occasion, a pumped up attack of not inconsiderable quality and an out of form batsman of great class being pushed into an unfamiliar role.

I looked back at the 2006-07 Ashes series for pointers. India are playing a side which has won 14 straight Test matches, and 5 of those came in the Ashes. McGrath and Warne were playing then, and so it was all presumably different. It doubtless was. But Lee and Clark formed the Australian attack in that series along with Warne and McGrath. I expected to find Warne and McGrath dominating the Australian bowling averages in that series. Clark and Lee together took 46 wickets at 24.06 in that series. Warne and McGrath took 43 wickets a 27.9. Clark led the Australian bowling averages, by a long way. He took 26 wickets at 17! Whats more, and this i always find to be the most telling statistic for a top pace bowler – he conceded 2.27 runs per over, to McGrath’s 2.4. Since that Ashes series, Brett Lee has now had 5 consecutive innings in which he’s taken 4 wickets in an innings. McGrath and Warne are clearly irreplaceable. They retired as all time greats and batting line ups around the world were happy to see them go. I just wonder, and this may be premature, whether in a few years time we will be waiting for the era of Lee and Clark to end.

Clark came on and decimated India’s middle order. He accounted for Dravid, Tendulkar, Yuvraj Singh and MS Dhoni. While Lee accounted for Jaffer, Ganguly, Kumble and Zaheer Khan. The brief period of Indian ascendancy was during the Tendulkar – Ganguly partnership. Both these players have spent most of this year either turning back the clock, or being engaged in a titanic struggle to find the ability and confidence to turn it back. Tendulkar’s battles (there is no other way of describing those innings) at Cape Town, Trent Bridge and the Oval gave way to his sumptuous ODI form against England and Australia and to his feast against Pakistan. Ganguly’s battling half centuries in South Africa and England lead to his run glut against the visiting Pakistan side.Until Tendulkar fell to one which misbehaved ever so slightly off the wicket from Clark, it looked as though we could sit back and enjoy yet another vintage stand. Both players looked in touch (in contrast to Dravid, who didn’t), and both players benefited from not having to bat with Dravid, something which Wasim Jaffer and VVS Laxman did. Neither VVS nor Jaffer were ever settled enough to be able to take some pressure off Dravid by taking on the bowling. Tendulkar might have been able to help him.

196 all out is a disappointing first innings score. India ought to have matched the Australians, or at least gotten within 50 runs of their total. As it happens, Australia end day two having taken 10 of the 20 wickets that they need to take, with a lead of 179. Australia lost 10/208 in their first innings. India can hope for a better effort in the second innings. A 4th innings chase of under 400, would be something to dream about for India. The bowlers will have to rescue India again for that to happen.

I don’t think Indian fans should throw in the towel yet. There is still cricket to be played in this game, and there is too much quality there for the result to be a foregone conclusion.

Melbourne Test – Day 1

Ricky Ponting won the toss and elected to bat against India in the first Test at Melbourne today. There was much speculation about the pitch, but India’s decision to play 2 spinners, Australia’s decision to play Bradley Hogg and Ponting’s decision to bat first, tell us what Ponting and Kumble thought about the wicket. It was not the lightning quick fast bowler’s paradise that Glenn McGrath had hoped for a few weeks ago.

Yet, in the first half an hour, the Australian openers survived on a prayer. They played and missed, edged a few, but were still there at the first drinks break. They kept going for their shots and went to lunch undefeated with a stand of 111. It was a typical Australian morning at a ground where they’ve won their last 8 Test matches. With the expectation that the wicket would ease in the aftenoon, there was much much speculation that Australia had pretty much set the tone for the series. They had a century opening stand at better than 4 an over.

The first hour after lunch changed all that. With aggressive intent came an air of casualness. Phil Jaques tried to push a seemingly harmless Kumble delivery out to mid off without getting to the pitch of the ball, only to find that the ball had sneaked past his outside edge for Dhoni to effect an expert stumping. Ricky Ponting came in and with 60 Test hundreds between the two players at the wicket for Australia on a flat wicket, things seemed to have gotten better, not worse for Australia. Zaheer Khan had other ideas however, for he produced the ball of the day to dismiss Ricky Ponting. It was a beauty from round the wicket, pitched on a perfect length which drew Ponting into the on drive only to seam away towards off stump. Ponting was squared up and bowled. Michael Hussey came in, and now India were faced with two left handers again. But the Australians continued to convey an casual air and Michael Hussey missed straight one from Kumble and was hit on the back pad. It was one of those split second decisions from the umpire. It was a 50-50 call, but luckily for Kumble, Umpire Benson seems to be the kind of Umpire who will invariably find in the bowlers favor if the batsman is hit on the back leg and everything else seems to be reasonably acceptable. Hussey may be forgiven for feeling undone since the ball appeared to be sliding past off stump, but he will know that once he was hit on the back leg, it was more than likely that he would be sent on his way. Michael Clarke came in and began circumspectly against some tight bowling. At the other end, Mathew Hayden was nearing his hundred and raced through the 90′s undeterred by the 3 wickets which fell at the other end.

The tight bowling however took its toll. Hayden had reach his hundred in 126 balls. With Clarke he shared a partnership of 60 in 20 overs, in which Clarke made 20(60). Eventually, the right hander’s patience ran out and he chased a wide one from the persevering RP Singh and was on his way once VVS took a smart catch low down to his right at second slip. RP Singh didn’t have his best day, but if he erred it tended to be towards a wide offside line, and not down the leg side. The stand with Clarke had spoilt Mathew Hayden’s rythm, and after scoring 24(58) after his century, he offered a tame catch to Sourav Ganguly at mid on off Zaheer Khan. There was a continual threat about Zaheer Khan’s bowling and he bowled better than he 3/93 off 22 overs suggest.

Once Hayden went, Kumble took charge. Symonds and Gilchrist threatened a typically aggressive stand before Symonds failed to control a pull shot of Kumble to be caught at mid wicket. It was the sort of dismissal you would see from a batsman who was being belligerent without really getting a measure of the wicket. One felt for a while during the Symonds-Gilchrist stand (they added 40 in less than 10 overs), that Kumble had missed a trick by keeping the 2 left arm pacemen on and not bringing on the off spinner while Gilchrist was new at the wicket, given the southpaw wicketkeeper’s troubles against India’s spinners in the past (Anil Kumble has dismissed him 7 times while Harbhajan Singh has done so 6 times). But Kumble’s plan worked and both Gilchrist and Symonds well trying to force the pace. This was one occasion when Australias trademark belligerence did not work.

Hogg and Lee, who are not traditional tail enders by any means (Hogg has a first class average of nearly 35, while Lee averages 21 with the bat in Tests) should have been exactly the type of tailenders to produce the kind of stand which has driven Indian captains to distraction in the past. This time however, the new ball accounted for Hogg and a Kumble special accounted for Lee.

Hogg was dismissed in the 87th over of the day. It would have been the perfect day for India had they bowled the Australians out in the 88th over. It would have meant that they would have been able to start their innings tomorrow. The Aussie last wicket pair had other ideas and their 25 run last wicket stand spoilt what would have been the perfect end to a fine first day for the visitors.

Anil Kumble and Zaheer Khan were the stand out bowlers for India. At the beginning of the day, India would have been happy to restrict the Australians to a first innings of less than 350. They nearly managed it with a rousing post-lunch come back . If the Aussie last wicket manages a further 25 runs tomorrow, then these last wicket runs could prove crucial in the context of this Test match.

The bowlers have delivered for India on Day 1. It’s over to the batsmen…

Two Centuries….

The Melbourne Cricket Ground celebrates it’s 100th Test Match. Like a batsman who’s century is in doubt because one of his “runs” may have actually been a leg bye, the MCG reaching three figures has been a matter of some dispute. The most consequential Test Match after the Second World War was rained off at Melbourne during the 1970-71 Ashes and different statisticians view this differently – a few think it was a Test which was rained off, a few others think it (more accurately) was never a Test.
The latter view is more accurate for the simple reason that Ray Illingworth and Bill Lawry never went out to toss for the Test Match. They did Toss for what became the first One Day International. Consequently, the 2007 Boxing day Test is the 100th Test to be played at the MCG. It is quite fitting that it should be an India v Australia contest and not the Ashes contest (which it would have been had Lawry and Illingworth tossed in 1970) of 2006. That was a dead rubber in the what was the most anticlimactic Test series in living memory.

This Melbourne Test features the two most successful Test teams of the year. Both sides are studded with enormously accomplished cricketers. India go in with three players having played 100 Tests. Sourav Ganguly will join the club at the MCG as he takes the field for the 100th time in Tests for India.

How much does India’s standing as a Test team of significant merit have to do with the influence of Sourav Ganguly? This Test team was formed during his tenure as captain and has been built around the accomplishment of the 4 hundred test men, VVS, Sehwag and Harbhajan Singh. It emerged from the debacle of match-fixing and Sourav Ganguly built this team in his image. Young players were encouraged to express themselves and along with Wright, Ganguly set about rebuilding the team in his own image. Ironically, his own game deteriorated alarmingly in the process. Ganguly’s team was at its peak between July 2002 and May 2004. This was the period when all the quality was translated into results consistently. India didn’t have a poor series in this period barring the misadventure on the under prepared wickets in New Zealand on the eve of the 2003 World Cup. Ganguly’s decline began after May 2004 and the 2004-05 season was a disaster. By then he had almost completely lost his fluent assertive capacity with the bat. His innings were usually attritional bouts consisting of large periods of shaky defense interspersed with staccato bursts of pre-meditated hitting. In Test cricket he was struggling, while in ODI cricket he got away with opening the batting. Even there, his results were fine against the minnows, but he struggled against good opposition.

The result was that he lost the captaincy as well as his place in the side. It was probably the best thing that happened to him. Rahul Dravid took over and carried on Ganguly’s good work. It was a difficult act to follow. Ganguly had been a popular captain and his shadow is still writ large on this side over two years after he was dismissed.

It would be fair to say that Sourav Ganguly has been the most inconsistent, unpredictable Indian middle order batsman in this decade. In this decade, Ganguly has averaged 39.93 in Tests compared to Tendulkar’s 53.41, Laxman’s 49.93, Dravid’s 58.69. He has played some of the most memorable innings by an Indian batsman in Test cricket. The numbers do not support the argument that he has struggled in fast bowler friendly conditions. He has made plenty of runs in England and Australia. His struggle has largely been in India, where his batting average drops to 36.50, and these numbers include his recent mammoth series at home against Pakistan. He has reached fifty 7 times in 45 innings and if you exclude the Pakistan series, he reached fifty 4 times in 39 outings in India in this decade. By comparison Dravid and Tendulkar make 50 or more once in 3 innings on average.

As he prepares to take the field in his 100th Test, in the 100th Test at one of the world’s great cricket grounds, as the in form batsman for his side, he will walk on to a stage that is tailor made that is ready made for yet another Ganguly special. He defined the 2003-04 tour for India with a brilliant 144 at Brisbane after Dravid, Sehwag and Tendulkar had fallen within 5 runs of each other.

It will be a great occasion. I suspect the Prince of Calcutta will make it his own…….

Melbourne Test – Where will Rahul Dravid bat?

Rahul Dravid opened the batting for India in the game against Victoria. The Indian team management is clearly toying with the idea of rethinking the batting order to accommodate Yuvraj Singh after his tremendous century at Bangalore. Given the composition of the Indian squad, they have a number of options available to them, assuming that they will play 4 specialist bowlers.

They could retain the opening pair of Dinesh Karthik and Wasim Jaffer. This would allow them to play 5 more specialist batsmen, assuming that Dinesh Karthik keeps wicket. The line up would then read Karthik, Jaffer, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman, Yuvraj. This will mean that Mahendra Dhoni misses out. Alternatively, they could drop Dinesh Karthik, and ask Rahul Dravid to open the batting. This disrupts the rest of the batting order, but gives India the opportunity to play Dhoni at number 7. Further, it gives India the opportunity to play either VVS Laxman or the in form Sourav Ganguly at number 3.

The first choice would be the conservative, safe option. It is tried and tested, and has worked well in South Africa and England. The second option would involve greater risk, and also possibly greater reward. The real question for India is where they want the wicket keeper to bat – Dinesh Karthik opening the batting, or Mahendra Dhoni at number 7. The Dinesh Karthik option would give them a deeper batting line up, but a weaker opening pair, while the Mahendra Dhoni will give a stronger opening pair, but a batting line up which is less deep. The first option would be considered “defensive” or “defeatist” and further fuel a growing perception amongst watchers the Kumble’s India are a conservative cricket team. The second option, where Dravid opens the batting, would be viewed as more aggressive and also fuel the legend of Dravid the “team-man”. It will be interesting to see what choices Kumble will make.

The wicket, which at this point is the great unknown may influence Kumble’s decision more than anything else. If Kumble and Harbhajan Singh both play, then India may well go with Rahul Dravid. Wickets on which Kumble and Harbhajan prove to be effective are likely to offer less help to fast bowling, there by making Dhoni more effective in the late order. If the wicket allows India to play 3 pace bowlers, then Dinesh Karthik may well play, as India will be well served with a deeper batting order. Dinesh Karthik in any case, has shown a peculiar tendency to favor overseas conditions when opening the batting. Hence, a fast bowler friendly wicket may engender a deeper line up, while a drier wicket will probably see India playing Dhoni.

There is of course the Sehwag option, which would be a big risk, given Sehwag’s lack of form and given the fact that he didn’t play against Victoria. That the tour match was rained off has not helped India. I would be very surprised if Sehwag played at the MCG.

The question at the end of the day will be dictated by the wicket. Dravid at number 3 would be the best possible option in my view. Most importantly it would be a vote of confidence in him. Sourav Ganguly though, is a man with a sense of occasion, and i wouldn’t be surprised at all if he bats at number 3 in his 100th Test match and makes a century in front of a full house at the MCG!

That would be some story….

India arrive in Australia

As tours go, this is not what Fred Trueman would have called a “cream and jelly tour” for India. Runs, wickets and victories will have to be earned the hard way, while the hosts expect to win as a matter of course. I suspect that public expectation and public opinion in India about this tour ranges somewhere between “we’re going to get hammered” and “we’re going to be very competitive”. This is of course amongst those who are actually interested in the cricket.

“Australia” is not the sparsely populated island continent in the Southern Hemisphere, it is gold in terms of all things cricketing for most cricket fans. The bouncy pitches of “OstraliaandSauthafrica” test our batsmen, as though playing on wickets in India or Pakistan or Sri Lanka is some how a lesser challenge than playing in these Southern cricketing paradises (i know it sounds funny in plural, but it seems especially appropriate that way). India have already shot themselves in both feet by producing flat, slow and low pitches in Kolkata and Bangalore. How could they not have thought about the MCG and Perth?

Then there is speculation about a drop-in pitch. This dropping, unlike the bird variety, can be controlled to a fine degree – or so everybody thinks. Drop-In pitches are prepared in what might be considered pitch laboratories, in controlled conditions, with the result that well-prepared pitches can be ensured, and more importantly, the behaviour of pitches can be effectively predicted. Since nobody really knows how this yet to be concieved pitch will behave, and since Australian Cricket people are not of the shy variety, there is plenty of un-shyness flying around. Glenn McGrath offered the ultimate McGrathesque opinion that Australia should abandon the idea of playing a spinner, and simply play four quick bowlers. Even he doesn’t know how many birds he killed with that one stone. Im certain he intended it to be a prolific effort. Andrew Hilditch (he who lost his Test place in the Australian side of the mid-eighties because he couldn’t resist playing the hook shot straight down fine-leg’s throat), now one of the three wise men for Australia, is worried about whether or not the pitch will yield reverse swing for Tait and co.! Stuart Clark, who actually played at the MCG (im not sure if it was drop in; im not even sure if drop-in is optional) a few days ago couldn’t hide his disappointment. He said the pitch was the kind where “after 10 overs of the new ball there was 1 slip and short covers everywhere”. One assumes this was due to the lack of lateral movement, and not because of an endless barrage of half volleys. Currently, its all up in the air.

Bradley Hogg is likely to play and Harbhajan Singh thinks he isn’t good enough to be bowling in a Test Match. I suspect that many of the Indian batsmen can’t pick Bradley Hogg from the hand. Stuart MacGill has opined that they don’t actually care what a spinner is bowling from the hand, but i think this time around they will have to be watchful. The difference between Test and ODI cricket though, is that in ODI cricket, with the field spread, if a spinner bowls 3 half volleys and 3 good deliveries, it is entirely likely that the three half volleys will be tapped to the deep-set straight field for singles and the three goodish length balls will go to cover or mid-wicket and be “dot-balls”. In Test Cricket, thats a bad over, for at least one of the three half volleys is bound to be hit for four, and the six balls are likely to convey absolute dominance of bat over ball. Hogg will have to overcome this, and i suspect this is what Anil Kumble was referring to when he said “Test Cricket of course is a completely different ball game”.

The Indian pace attack is nondescript as usual. I wonder when we in India will find our Stuart MacGill who will finally admit that the Australian batsmen don’t really seem to care what the Indian pace attack delivers. This time around though, the Australians may be in for a surprise. Zaheer Khan was brilliant in England and was reliably accurate against Pakistan until he broke down. Irfan Pathan worked up a surprising amount of pace against Pakistan at Bangalore, if the admittedly erratic speed gun at the Chinnaswamy is to be believed, and RP Singh will hopefully be fighting fit come boxing day. Whats more, even if one of them is not fit, Ishant Sharma looked quite good and for once, i hope that the wishes of our “OstraliaandSauthAfrica” crowd vis a vis the bounce in the wickets is true. Of course, he might bowl short and wide and get hammered by the “cut and the pull” or the “horizontal bat shots” which the Australian school of batting seems to thrive on. For once though, India will travel to Australia with a pace attack which has actually won a series for India in overseas conditions. It must bring higher expectations, though if Australia make 500 in each of their 4 first innings, do you know who will be blamed for India not winning? It is to them that i now turn.

India’s middle order is on its 3rd tour of Australia. Tendulkar apart, the other three have improved with each tour. Ganguly, Dravid and Laxman struggled in 2000 (apart from 1 innings by VVS), but made 5 Test centuries between them in 2003-04. In addition to these four stalwarts, India have also selected that other marauder from 2003-04 – Virender Sehwag. He may feel slightly anemic right now, but if he strikes form against Victoria, it will leave Anil Kumble with a pleasant headache (apart from confirming Dilip Vengsarkar as one of the greatest hunch selectors in the history of India’s selection). Ideally, only one out of Dinesh Karthik and Mahendra Dhoni should play. With Yuvraj Singh and Virendra Sehwag (and his off spin) in India’s ranks, it would be silly to play both wicketkeepers in the eleven. Yuvraj is a better Test batsman than Dhoni. If Dinesh Karthik opens the batting, it might be possible to play Yuvraj Singh at number 7.

India will have to watch out for the left handers in the Aussie line up. Left Handers have done well against India in recent times. It is ironic that the greatest left hander of them all did not quite take advantage of this weakness. Mathew Hayden, Phil Jaques, Michael Hussey and Adam Gilchrist will test them. Then there is Ponting. Michael Clarke, if i could put it this way, is the weak link in this Australian batting line up. He of course made 155 against India at Bangalore on Test debut three years ago.

Realistically, one expects India to be competitive – to stay in the game and hope for a chance to break through the Aussie line up like they did on that amazing 4th day at Adelaide 4 years ago almost to the day (On 15th December 2003, Ajit Agarkar took 6/42 to bowl Australia out for 196 and set up a famous Indian victory).

Having conceded the Border-Gavaskar Trophy to Australia at Nagpur in 2004, this will be a formidable challenge – one worthy of India’s greatest cricketing generation.

Discussing Declarations….

The third Test match at Bangalore ended in a draw giving India a 1-0 series win. India won against Pakistan for the first time in many many years, Anil Kumble won his first series as captain, the Indian batting was never seriously threatened, Irfan Pathan bowled and batted well, Wasim Jaffer batted brilliantly, Sourav Ganguly was majestic, Rahul Dravid was able to get a start every single time without ever making the opposition pay, none of the batsmen looked out of touch, Ishant Sharma got better and better as the third Test progressed, and like it was after the English series, we will discuss whether or not the Indian captain has “guts”, “confidence”, can “back himself and his team” and “make things happen”. In addition, this time around there is another elephant in the room along with our armchairs – Australia. This word is currently so overloaded with meaning, that it would require a post in itself to explain what it meant. Very briefly, Australia is not only the unstated final frontier in cricketing terms, it is also the entity which embraces everything that may present itself in our hazy armchair dreams for the Indian team. Australia are “aggressive”, “confident”, “believe in themselves”, “win” etc. etc. etc.

Coming back to mother earth, Cricinfo’s comment on the Bangalore Test is a classic armchair critics manifesto. The statement of the thesis is:

“In hindsight I probably should have bowled medium-pace in the first innings,” Kumble said after the draw. In hindsight, he should have perhaps backed himself, and the rest of the bowlers, and declared half-an-hour earlier”.

This is advice, admonition and commentary about strategy all rolled into one. Cricinfo are always fair though, and they present both sides of the story. Balance, you see. The arguments favoring the choices Kumble made are stated as follows:

“Those in favour will echo Kumble, who said India “had to get to a situation where we could absolutely ensure a series victory.” India were, after all, defending a 1-0 lead and were justified in wanting to shut the door completely. Another argument is that the poor light was unforeseen and, but for it, they would probably have comfortably picked up those last three wickets given the speed with which the first seven fell.”

Then comes the killer paragraph:

“Convincing, but not as emphatic as the counter to those arguments. India’s lead was 310 by lunch and the probability of Pakistan chasing a target of such magnitude, on a pitch where the bounce was getting lower by the over, was almost zero. Importantly, had the declaration come ten overs earlier, at the cost of 35-40 runs to the target, India would have had a buffer against the weather. The timing of the eventual declaration, little more than an hour after lunch, leaving Pakistan 374 to chase and 48 overs to save the Test, betrayed a defensive mindset.”

Really? Declaring 10 overs earlier would have given India a buffer against the weather? Doesn’t this fly in the face of all normal logic? The reason India got all those wickets was because Kumble decided to bowl seam up, after tea. Would declaring 10 overs earlier than he did, enabled India to squeeze in 10 overs more after tea? Or is it the cricinfo author’s case that Kumble would have thought about bowling seam up 10 overs into the innings anyways, and that the break at tea time which allowed then to take a moment and think things through had nothing to do with the development of the idea? Also, would 10 overs have given India a “buffer” against an “unforeseen” weather disruption? Is that not a contradiction? India’s lead was 310 by lunch, and there the Cricinfo author makes the beginnings of a good argument, but does not pursue it further for some odd reason .

The Cricinfo’s commentators argument, made so shamelessly with the benefit of hindsight, hits all the right buttons – “aggression v defensive mindset”, “aversion to risk”, “what of Australia”. It also suggests that this is somehow becoming a habit, reminding us of the Oval Test, where

“India left the declaration until an hour after tea on the fourth day, when they had accumulated a lead of 500, after having earlier decided not to enforce the follow-on. England finished the fifth day 131 short of their target with four wickets in hand.”

India made 59 runs in the hour after tea in that Test and about 90 runs between the hour after lunch and the hour after tea, having suffered a rare batting collapse (5/89) in this innings. Had India declared say an hour before tea, then would England have ended up 40 runs shy with 4 wickets in hand? Would giving Zaheer Khan two hours less to recover been in India’s favor? Would it have been wise to have allowed that kind of situation after having fought so hard to win the series?

I reject the “aggression” argument. Not declaring does not imply an aversion to risk or a lack of aggression, anymore than using the reverse sweep against Harbhajan Singh implies a liking for risk or an instinctively “aggressive” mindset on the part of Younis Khan. This was the juxtaposition repeated time and again by Bruce Yardley (who seems to really believe in earning his money – he talks all the time). The reverse sweep as used by Younis Khan was a carefully prepared method against a particular bowler. Harbhajan Singh has an aversion to coming round the wicket to the right hander, hence his line of attack is usually outside off stump. He also bowls without a cover point most of the time, choosing to have a silly point instead. Thus, the reverse sweep is a “risk free” option against him. The batsman can’t be LBW because he’s outside off stump, the batsman runs little risk of being bowled because the pad and the body is between the ball and the stumps, the batsman runs little risk of being caught close in, because the expansive stroke invariably causes the close in men to duck. It worked almost every time for Younis while Harbhajan Singh was bowling over the wicket. When Harbhajan came round the wicket, it became a different ball game altogether. Now, the LBW came into the picture, as did bowled, because the ball pitched in line with the stumps and straightened with the break, causing the batsman to be offside of both the stumps and the line of the ball. Younis went for the reverse sweep nevertheless, and was promptly bowled. Now, was this a fatal attraction to risk? Or did Younis Khan simply miss the point? Or, with the tables turned on him, and with Harbhajan doing something that the batsman did not expect, did Younis lose the plot? Or was he bull headed and stubborn in sticking to the same ploy?

I raise this simply to show how shallow and inadequate arguments about “aggression” can be. Why didn’t Anil Kumble declare at Lunch? Thats an excellent question. I wish some one would ask it. Then again, how many times has a Test match been won with a side being bowled out in the last two sessions of play? Almost never. Why did Kumble declare immediatly after Dinesh Karthik was dismissed? Could he have been swayed by VVS getting hit on the elbow? Could he have decided that it wasn’t worth risking either himself or Harbhajan with the Australian tour coming up? What did he expect when he declared with 48 overs to be played? Was it simply a case of “at this point, we would rather bowl, instead of exposing our bowlers to Shoaib on this wicket”?

There are clues to Kumble’s thinking in what he said, and indeed in the scorecard. The spinners achieved nothing of note in this game (Kumble’s success came bowling seam up). There was “no turn or bounce” in Kumble’s judgement. There was therefore nothing significant to work with. With a second string pace attack consisting of a rookie and a third seamer, could Kumble have seriously hoped to achieve what Shoaib and Sami with their tailor made styles for uneven wickets (pace, a habit of attacking the stumps) couldn’t? Did the wicket, prepared by the KSCA with the help of pitch experts from New Zealand, not defeat everyone in the end?

If the wicket was as bad as it was, how can you explain the fact that until Yuvraj Singh came along, and Anil Kumble’s seam up style paid dividends, the scoreline for the match read (India 626 and 284/6 d, Pakistan 537 and 144/3)? In fact, if you leave out the fact that the Indian and Pakistan tail end folded rapidly in the first innings, India reached 600/6 and Pakistan reached 500/6 respectively.

Pakistan went into this series 1-0 down. If Younis Khan was indeed interested in taking risks and winning, why didn’t he declare immediatly after the follow on had been saved? Then if India had batted on, he would have at least have tried to win but been thwarted by India’s refusal to make a game of it. Why is the onus for enforcing a win on the side that is ahead 1-0 and not on the side that must win to save the series? Did the ease with which Pakistan were batting in the first innings not suggest that they might have fancied a chase of say 350 in the last 8 or 9 hours of the game? Given that they were behind, and had conceded 600 in the first innings, would a 350 run chase not been worth going for? What happened to the “lets go for the win, it doesn’t matter if we lose 2-0″ argument? With Shoaib back to full fitness (he bowled 17 overs in the 3rd innings), would it have not been worth the gamble?

To say that Kumble was not “aggressive” is to miss the point. It is to reduce every decision into two clear and ultimately useless categories – aggressive or defensive. Kumble the captain did not let down Kumble the bowler. Kumble the bowler was useless on this wicket. It was Kumble the “bowler”, bowling seam up who found something that he could exploit. Ironically Kumble the “bowler” was a creation of Kumble the Captain.

A left arm spinner, who would have out of necessity attacked the stumps more than an off spinner might actually have been effective on this wicket. Both Abdur Rehman and Murali Kartik will wonder about this.

As for India, Kumble and the Australian tour, we can rest assured that Anil Kumble will not do anything reckless in Australia. As for “aggression” – the Vengsarkar committee has just selected Virender Sehwag for the Australian tour, on a hunch, with no runs to his name in the Ranji Trophy. Almost exactly a year ago, this same committee made one other selection like this. That player made 534 runs in the current series and has made over 1100 runs since his comeback at an average of about 60.

This is a hunch, much like Kumble’s hunch about bowling seam up (note than Ganguly in his seam up avatar was not as effective). Hunches ought to be made when there is nothing to lose – either when everything is already lost, or when nothing significant can be lost if the hunch doesn’t work. Until such time, the Anil Kumble approach is the way to go.

Bangalore Test Day 2

Southpaws continued their dominance on Day 2 of the Bangalore Test. The bat dominated the ball again. Sourav Ganguly, Irfan Pathan and Salman Butt all prospered and at the end of the day, India are almost certainly gauranteed a series victory. India’s batsmen mastered whatever bowling Pakistan could throw at them. Early indications are that Pakistan’s batsmen have reciprocated. However, this can be definitively said only after the morning session tomorrow, for batting in the morning has been significantly more difficult than batting in the afternoon and evening sessions.

It was barely a contest between bat and ball and Sourav Ganguly will probably tell you that his runs yesterday were some of the easiest he has ever made in his test career. The Pakistan bowling this series has been disappointing barring Shoaib Akthar’s bowling at Delhi. Danish Kaneria has been unable to control the runs. Mohammad Sami has been unlucky at times (he should have had Dinesh Karthik in the morning session) and wayward at others. Yasir Arafat had a five wicket haul on Test debut – in itself a fine achievement. It was however one of the most pyrrhic five wicket hauls one could ever imagine.

When India bowled, the new ball attack was easily negotiated by the Pakistan openers, and whatever trouble they had was of Yasir Hameed’s own making. Ishant Sharma bowled an opening spell where he delivered nothing that would have gone on to hit the stumps. As a bowler, with 5-6 methods of dismissal available to him, he was clearly not bowling for 2 of them. This didn’t deter Hameed though. He seemed intent on knocking off much of the deficit yesterday itself going hard at balls wide outside off stump. His partner was much more composed and showed very sure judgement of his off stump. Coming as it did after 5 sessions in the field, it was an impressive innings, aided by some lacklustre bowling.

Anil Kumble started off poorly, but with Yasir Hameed, it was a matter of time. There was much discussion in the commentary box about Hameed having opened his stance. Just as Aamir Sohail was completing his sentence, Hameed planted his front foot down and was struck low down in front of off stump. He was plumb. Dismissed in exactly the same way as before. Having reduced everything to “learning from your mistakes”, Sohail found himself at a loss for words. There was one other delivery from Kumble which skidded along the ground under Younis Khan’s forward defensive blade and missed the off stump by a whisker. It will give the Indian captain a lot of hope.

Having watched the first two tests and now the first two days of this one, one can’t help feeling that this is a Test series between a veteran Indian side which is surprised by nothing in the Test Match arena any more and a Pakistan side which is going through the motions and can be roused only when it is threatened with defeat. Misbah Ul Haq, Salman Butt, Younis Khan, Kamran Akmal and to some extent Yousuf have shone with the bat. Mohammad Sami has shown himself to be a great trier with bat and ball, and Danish Kaneria has wheeled away inspite of knowing that the Indian batsmen are not really troubled by him. In all three Test’s however, Pakistan have thrown away the advantage in their first innings, and had to play catch up for the rest of the game. They’ve gone through two captains, been a bowler short in two consecutive Test matches thanks to Shoaib. Being a bowler short is the worst possible thing that can happen to a team in a Test Match (well, being 2 or 3 bowlers short is much worse obviously). It kills the game as a contest, and only one team can realistically win the game, unless it chooses to engage in sporting declarations.

This wicket, prepared by the KSCA with expert help from New Zealand has been a disaster with uneven bounce on the first day. It is probably not as slow as the Eden Gardens or Kotla wickets were, but seems to be two paced. Come Boxing Day India’s batsmen will have to make every ounce of their experience count if they are to make the adjustment. These runs will help though.

On the pace bowling front, there are more serious worries for India. Ishant Sharma looks raw, Irfan Pathan is not the bowler he was in 2004, Zaheer Khan, Munaf Patel, Sreesanth and R P Singh are all injured. I can see Ponting and co. licking their lips in anticipation.

This Bangalore Test has ceased to be of interest at this point. Pakistan cannot win it from here. It remains to be seen if India’s bowlers hit the right spots on the pitch enough times, with a high enough frequency to eek out 20 wickets before stumps are drawn on Day 5. As it was at Eden, the Pakistan first innings will be the key. If they make 400, it will be difficult for India to force the issue.

So far this series has been a vindication for Dilip Vengsarkar and his masterstroke in late 2006. Sourav Ganguly has made 1034 Test runs in 20 innings since his return at an average of 57.44. He was picked on a hunch, without any Ranji Trophy runs to go by. Since his return, Ganguly has batted as though he belongs in Test cricket, something that was sorely missing in the run up to his dismissal in 2005. He is at ease with his batting technique and feels under no pressure. He has been above the fray, much like Tendulkar was in the early part of this decade when he could and did speak on behalf of the team as he after the Australia defeat early in the 2003 World Cup. He has said nothing at all about Chappell and seems to have put it all behind him. Shaun Tait, Brett Lee and Stuart Clark will Test Ganguly. But he could not be better placed in terms of form, confidence or mindset to take them on.

Unless Ishant Sharma surprises us, it will be Kumble & Harbhajan v Pakistan for the last 3 days of this Test match.