India abroad…. almost the best of the rest…….

You might wonder at the outset about this title – there are other sides which have done well overseas, as much, if not more often, than India have. Consider these numbers for this decade, for away performance of all Test playing nations (not counting performances in Zimbabwe and Bangladesh). The last figure in each line are points – 1 for a win, 0.5 for a draw and 0 for a defeat.

India 9-14 in 38 Tests – 16.5
Pakistan 9-15 in 32 Tests – 13
Sri Lanka 6-15 in 27 Tests – 9
England 12-18 in 42 Tests – 18
South Africa 10-15 in 36 Tests – 15.5
Australia 24-8 in 36 Tests – 26
West Indies 1-32 in 44 Tests – 6.5
New Zealand 1-10 in 21 Tests – 8

When you consider that fast bowling is what wins Test matches overseas, it is not hard to realize the magnitude of India’s overseas achievements in this decade, coming as it does after India had not won a single Test match overseas (barring Sri Lanka in 1992) in the 1990’s. Lets have a look at the records of the major Indian players in these results (these figures are for the Test’s considered above only)

Rahul Dravid – 3352 runs at 60.95
Virendra Sehwag – 2068 runs at 49.23
VVS Laxman – 2325 runs at 48.43
Sachin Tendulkar – 2069 runs at 47.02
Sourav Ganguly – 1785 runs at 40.53

Ironically, as more and more fast bowling talent has begun to emerge, the batsmen have aged. They are still fine batsmen though – some of the finest in the world. The two bowlers who have played the large majority of those overseas Tests for India have been Anil Kumble and Zaheer Khan. Other bowlers have played important parts – Ashish Nehra, Laxmipathy Balaji, Irfan Pathan, Harbhajan Singh, Sreesanth, Munaf Patel, Ajit Agarkar, RP Singh etc.

Anil Kumble – 116 wickets at 34.87
Zaheer Khan – 91 wickets at 33.06

Comparing this with the best team in the world in Away performances

Ricky Ponting – 2408 runs at 51.23
Mathew Hayden – 2744 runs at 46.5
Justin Langer – 2377 runs at 45.71
Adam Gilchrist – 2356 runs at 49.08
Damien Martyn – 2184 runs at 49.63
Steve Waugh – 1059 runs at 54.95

Clarke, Hussey, Symonds and Lehman have all featured in the Australian middle order during this decade, as has Mark Waugh.

Australia’s batting numbers, while superior to India’s are not decisively so. Their great advantage has been Adam Gilchrist, and a world class, well settled opening pair. The quality of the Indian line up is apparent from the comparison of their numbers to those of this great Australian team. Rahul Dravid’s record overseas is probably the finest amongst all batsmen in this decade (i haven’t checked Kallis and Lara, but i don’t think they have done much better than 3000 runs at 60!).

Where then does the difference lie – the difference indicated by 24-8 as against 9-14? The answer is quite obviously the bowling. The best (i say best, because they are the most capped) Indian bowlers average 34 and 33 respectively away from home. Compare that to the following:

McGrath – 127 wickets at 19.96
Gillespie – 105 wickets at 28.05
Lee – 93 wickets at 32.87
Warne – 199 wickets at 24.00

Add Kasprowicz, Clark and MacGill to this list, and even they have done better than India’s best.

Thats the difference between India and Australia. At Lord’s India’s bowlers were lauded for keeping England under 300 in both innings, when they should probably have conceded no more than 225 in the first and probably the same number in the second (that would have meant victory at Lord’s for India). Australia would have restricted England to that score, and been 2-0 up by now. And yes – they would have probably won by an innings at Trent Bridge.

It is fitting that Dravid is captain now. He has been the finest batsman in the world in away Test in this decade – arguably the finest of all batsmen in this decade playing anywhere (all though Ponting is probably supported by a finer argument – 4335 runs at 74.74 in Australia in this decade!). India will go to the Oval looking forward to breaking yet another of their perennial bogeys – that of going off the boil in the Test after an overseas win.

Matthew Hoggard will probably return to replace James Anderson, and i suspect that England may see if they can rush Andrew Flintoff back in time for the Oval Test now that they are behind.

India go to the Oval as equal, as slight favorites even. As Rahul Dravid said after the Trent Bridge win – “I think expectations have increased over the last four or five years,and people don’t expect us to just come here and be part of the summer. People do expect us to come and perform and we expect ourselves to come here and perform. We don’t come here just to be another team.”

The numbers suggest he has played the telling hand in this transformation. But he has had a quiet time overseas in recent months. Five years ago, he confirmed his membership of the great players club with a double hundred at the Oval. Might we see an encore from the great man?

Trent Bridge Test, Day 4 Review – India on the brink!!!

After an unconvincing effort for most of the day, Zaheer Khan and RP Singh produced an inspired burst with the second new ball to break trigger a collapse of the English line up which has become an all too familiar feature in this series now. They lost 7/43 in the first innings at Lord’s, 7/97 in the first innings at Trent Bridge and 7/68 in the second innings today. Their best effort was at Lord’s, thanks in large part to the century stand between Prior and Pietersen.

Both Zaheer and RP demonstrated the ability to swing the ball both ways and got better as the day progressed. Zaheer was the stand out performer. Sreesanth on the other hand had a horrendous day – his second terrible day out of 4 bowling days on this tour. His figures in the first innings were better than he deserved as well. RP improved vastly from his first innings effort. Zaheer’s has been the (potentially) match winning effort. Strauss’s wicket was the opening that kept India in the hunt, even though it was followed by two reasonable stands – 45 with Kevin Pietersen and 112 with Paul Collingwood. It was in the company of Pietersen that Vaughan came into his own. In partnership with Pietersen, he was at his very best. He was helped to some extent by the Indian bowling – 49(58) off Kumble and 14(17) off Tendulkar.

Sreesanth is in serious danger of earning a reputation as someone who is not always honest. He was constantly heckling all the batsmen, even though he was bowling poorly, then he inadvertantly (hopefully) let slip a beamer and apologized immediatly. So far so good. But later, he went round the wicket very briefly and bowled a bouncer which was the biggest no ball in living memory. Sreesanth was so poor, that the commentators were at a loss to explain what he was upto. It was definitely one of the most bizarre displays on a cricket field in a long time. Being excited is fine – but being out of control is not.

India will look to wrap up the game tomorrow. They should aim to score at better than 4 an over and win in style. It has been a memorable game, with Zaheer appearing on the honours board.

Trent Bridge Test, Day 4, Lunch – Erratic India, Watchful England

The point has been made that the “blame” or responsibility (a better word than blame) for India’s troubles at Lord’s lay with the middle order and not with the bowlers, who “came back strongly after the first day”. This view is fundamentally flawed and reveals a misunderstanding of the Test match contest in my view, and indeed the contest between bat and ball. The bowling today on the 4th morning, if it results in England going on to save the Test match, given the platform they have built, will illustrate why this is so.

The basic value of swing and seam, is that it is unplayable if the bowler gets it right. It doesn’t matter who the batsman is – if there is consistent seam and swing on offer, with a quality fast bowler who possesses control in operation, then it is almost certain that the batting line up (irrespective of names in that line up) will struggle. The converse of this is that if the bowlers get it wrong and bowl inconsistently, then the batting line up make runs. The difference between Lord’s and Trent Bridge is not that the Indian middle order was stung by criticism after Lord’s, it is that James Anderson bowled poorly at Trent Bridge, while he was brilliantly consistent at Lord’s. The sun shone for a while at Trent Bridge, which meant that the English attack lack the edge they had at Lord’s. Therefore, the pressure was not relentless and there were scoring opportunities on offer. In short, the English bowlers were unable to exert as much control at Trent Bridge compared to Lord’s on account of two reasons: their own accuracy and the conditions.

Similarly, the argument that the Indian bowlers actually did well at Lord’s by keeping England under 300 in both innings is flawed, because England got to 300 in the first innings because India bowled rubbish for most of that innings. Those runs are counted in the course of the Test match – yet it seems almost as though the lack of quality in the pace bowling ought not to matter, if you’ve been reading reports in the Indian cricket press recent.

Play on the 4th morning was yet another case of India’s mercurial bowling line up having one of their fitful sessions. There was swing on offer, yet too much of the bowling was wide, and Strauss was not made to play enough by either Sreesanth or Zaheer. They bowled very little that would have threatened the stumps, let alone actually been on the stumps. They allowed the English batsmen to leave easily outside off stump, and every time they actually strayed closer to the stumps, they beat the bat or had the batsman squared up. Zaheer was the best of the bowlers. RP and Sreesanth were not on song. Sreesanth especially seemed out of control with all his swearing and staring. As with Matt Prior yesterday, Sreesanth basically made a fool of himself and was spoken to by the umpire because things seemed to get out of hand. Somehow, this type of nonsense is quite popular with our Indian fans – erratic bowling, with no real control, coupled with arrogance. Give me the understated Munaf Patel who understands line and length (and actually bowls it) any day.

For the first time in this Test match, India have lost a session. The bowlers may yet make a “comeback”, and the batsmen (helped by England’s below par bowling effort) have given them enough of a cushion to still make a comeback – but the lack of quality and control in the bowling has hurt India for the whole of Kumble and Tendulkar’s career. Things have improved recently, but India are still one of the weakest pace attacks in the world – only West Indies are possibly weaker.

The key is control. In arithmetic terms – its a question of how many balls you can bowl exactly as you intend to bowl them. In Sreesanth’s case, that figure must to be somewhere in the low 30’s in percentage terms. Just to illustrate what im saying further – a for McGrath or Akram, a similar figure might have been 80-85. For Zaheer, it is probably 50-60 right now.

If you don’t believe what im saying about bowling and batting in Test cricket – check out the following two statistics:
1. How many “match-winning” Test innings has Brian Lara played after Curtly Ambrose retired?
2. How frequently has Lara reached 50 in a Test innings in England and in Australia in the last 10 years?

He is considered a “match-winning” batsman. Yet he’s won zero Tests in England and Australia since Ambrose retired. He’s reached 50 in 2 out of 18 innings in Australia in the last 10 years and in 4 out of 17 innings in England.

It is one of the most interesting dichotomies in the discussion about Test cricket in India. Everybody agrees to the principle that quality fast bowling is a non-negotiable necessity if you want to be a top class Test team. Yet, when it comes to assessing actual Test matches, poor fast bowling is often excused even when the conditions have clearly suited fast bowling, simply because the fast bowlers haven’t played a hundred Tests! So in effect the argument is – yes top class fast bowling is absolutely necessary to compete in Test cricket, but its the fault of the batsmen, because nothing much is expected from the fast bowlers anyways.

Judgements are made on Test cricket, while completely ignoring the contest between bat and ball!

Hopefully India will learn – its one of the advantages of bowling – it’s possible to make right in one good spell, the wrongs of 3-4 bad spells, while batsmen are allowed 2 mistakes per Test match. Its a beautifully designed contest – one which ought to be given its due when Test match performances are discussed.

Cricinfo’s lunch time headline reads – “Strauss and Vaughan dig deep” – they haven’t had to dig too deep, because three of the four bowlers haven’t bowled very well. India’ bowlers may eventually do well enough to make Strauss and Vaughan go away, but they won’t be able to recover the runs and time conceded while they weren’t bowling well. In the final analysis, both the good as well as the bad performance will count – whatever the “expectations” may be. The “expectations” play not part in the outcome of the Test match.

Prior chirps….. misses the point…

Andrew Miller writes about the third days play at Trent Bridge. Chirping and on field needle is his subject of choice, and he quotes the new English wicketkeeper Mathew Prior as follows:

“It’s a tough game at the top end and if you don’t enjoy it, you’re going to struggle,” Prior said, while insisting that what is said on the field should remain on the field. “It’s never nice when it’s you batting, and 11 blokes are giving you a barrage, but it comes with the territory. It’s Test cricket, it’s a hard game. We all want to win, we’re all playing to win. You’re going to try anything to get one-up on your opponent, as long as its within the spirit of the game.”

Considering that Prior has only just begun to play Test cricket, may be he might consider letting a few go harmlessly past his off stump before he starts making “It’s Test cricket, it’s a hard game” lines. He’s hardly played Test cricket – most of it has been a home series against the weakest West Indies side in living memory.

When a team is doing well, chirp looks and sounds good and smart. Some wit helps as well. When your 270 runs behind on the first innings, chirp looks stupid. Prior has not been tested and if his professional wicketkeepers appeal which accounted for Sourav Ganguly is his understanding of Test cricket being a “hard” game, then may be a visit to the referee’s cabin will do him no harm.

If Prior wants to learn about chirping, he need look no further than Andrew Flintoff – who’s come up with some priceless lines over the years. Watch this video, and may be Matt Prior could take some of Flintoff’s advice:

Two poor decisions…… Trent Bridge Test, Tea, Day 3

Tendulkar had reached 91 at Trent Bridge, and was still watching the ball extremely carefully. He left one outside off stump, watched it hold its line and hit his front pad outside off stump. He looked up and much to his surprise, Simon Taufel had upheld a fledgling appeal. There was barely a flicker of emotion on his face as he took it all in and then trudged off.

There will be a lot of comment about this – as to whether he might have been recalled etc. etc. as Pietersen was. This is not quite the same thing, since an LBW is a matter of opinion to start with.

Ganguly’s was another matter all-together. He was seemingly strangled down the leg side. Replays showed that he hadn’t hit it. He reacted with an explosion of disbelief, swirled around and marched off to the pavilion.

Both men desperately wanted a Test century in England, and it wasn’t hard to recognize the disappointment. Even though there is the precedent of Pietersen being called back at Lord’s, i don’t think thats a very good precedent and should not be applied here in Ganguly’s case. For better or for worse, that was the umpires decision, and in the long run it is probably wiser to respect it, even if it seems to have been in error in retrospect.

These decisions will give the world an opportunity to witness the other side of the Indian rage coin – if it isn’t the players who are cheating India, it is the umpires who are cheating them by make errors against the players. ESPN (Harsha Bhogle and co.) are apparently making a special program on the Tendulkar LBW (i sincerely hope David Lloyd said this in jest), and after the Ganguly dismissal, they might add him to it as well. In the case of Ganguly’s dismissal it can be categorically stated that it was a mistake, while in Tendulkar’s case, it would remain an merely an opinion that it was out (Hawkeye would not stand as evidence in any serious argument).

Tendulkar and Ganguly’s respective reactions to the decisions offered a fine study in their respective personalities. Tendulkar – not given to a burst of rage, far more circumspect and measured, while Ganguly – spontaneous disbelief followed closely by ill-disguised disagreement. Their subsequent actions, as visible on TV also showed how well they both dealt with the situation. Both probably calmed themselves down in the dressing room, blew of some steam. Tendulkar was later seen enjoying an ice cream on the balcony (a tea/coffee – something from a mug, a little while later), while Ganguly parked himself on the balcony and wondered in solitude about what might have been. If they meet Simon Taufel later this evening at the hotel or in the pavilion, im almost certain they will be polite and friendly. Taufel has trained with them before (the Elite Emirates Umpires often participate in pre match nets to practice some umpiring). They might even have a quiet word at tea time.

There are somethings which ought not to be questioned in my view – especially when the quality of an individual’s work is as well proven as it is in Simon Taufel’s case. Regardless of the position, genuine errors must be accepted. There is little merit in Indian supporters “forgiving” Taufel, he doesn’t owe them an apology, and Tendulkar and Ganguly won’t give the decision a second thought – by the time India take the field, it will all be forgotten. The TV channels will milk it for as long as they can, but they will still show the same footage every time.

India in a good position at Tea. It’s Anil Kumble’s match from here on….

Here’s a priceless bit of commentary i just saw on Cricinfo

“Anderson to Laxman, FOUR, shot – brilliant shot. A flick through mid-off. Now, if you or I tried to play that stroke the ball would’ve ended up somewhere near fine leg, but such is Laxman’s control that it was sweetly timed down the ground”

Trent Bridge Test, Day 2 – India’s day

India lead by 56 runs on the first innings with 7 wickets in hand at the end of the second day of the second Test at Trent Bridge. It was a day much like the ones at Lord’s. There was plenty of help for the bowlers and the sun stayed to watch only parts of the opening stand. The rub of the green went India’s way – the ball went past the edge, a couple of tough LBW’s (Jaffer against Monty – Tendulkar might see that and smile later today, and Karthik missing a sweep against the same bowler) calls went against England and in general, England looked like they were there and there abouts – just not enough to convert their efforts into a flurry of wickets. The line and length they achieved did not compare well with their bowling at Lord’s.

Much is made of the fact that this is England’s second string bowling. They are missing Flintoff, Harmison and Hoggard. Flintoff is sorely missed, for he lets England play 5 bowlers. Hoggard has been a steady wicket taker in England and has been a fixture in the England XI for a long time now. Harmison, im not sure is missed. If you look at the series averages for the West Indies series, Harmison took 16 wickets at 34 in the series, while Monty, Sidebottom and Hoggard all took their wickets between 18-23 per wicket. Besides, Tremlett’s has been easily the most impressive start to a bowling career, albeit in bowler friendly conditions, and Anderson bowled brilliantly at Lord’s.

This has been a series of unheralded individuals of whom the expectations are low, coming to the fore. The English bowling at Lord’s, and the Indian openers here at Nottingham. The real test of quality comes when the opposition knows you are good, and you still prove that you are. Monty has now passed that Test in my view, and ought to be seen as an established Test player.

Much will be made, and i just noticed that it has already begun of the weakest links coming through for India. That article by Sambit Bal consists of the ultimate doublespeak – every actual description of events on the field in that article points to two things – 1. That India were lucky, 2. That England were not. And yet, the Indian openers were “gutsy, skilful, and nothing short of heroic”! So presumably, had one of the near misses actually been an edge, say within the first 30 runs, we might have heard the usual nay saying about the ageing batting and the lack of talent in the openers slot.

It points to my earlier argument about the Tendulkar dismissal in the second innings at Lord’s – it is a matter of chance to a large extent, especially in conditions with something in it for the bowlers.

We also saw further evidence on the story of the two techniques – Rahul Dravid chooses to play spin much like Prior. He is admittedly much better at it than Prior (about 9000 runs better), but playing out in front of the pad causes the batsman to reach out to the ball play away from the body a tad. It is what the a good spinner will work for, for that is his best chance as Panesar proved. Dravid was beaten in the flight, and since his method relied on looking for the ball out on the front foot, found himself off balance and bang in the middle of Michael Vaughan’s well set trap. Tendulkar seemed to have made a slight adjustment (his method seemed to be a Bombay thing – Jaffer also uses the same method for playing spinners), in that he was consciously getting well forward and leaning into his defense rather than just block with a limited stride.

Panesar it has to be said, is a really good bowler.

There was the interesting incident of Tendulkar being hit on the helmet. I saw some superb analysis from Michael Holding (who’s hit a few batsmen in his time) and Michael Atherton and David Gower (who’ve been at the other end a few times). Holding pointed out that Tendulkar kept his eyes on the ball till the very end, and hence caught it on the grill rather than on the back of the head or the shoulder’s as he might have had he turned his back on the ball like many other batsmen.

All in all, it was a gritty effort in bowler friendly conditions. Holding made the point (which will doubtlessly ignored as irrelevant in India) that the English bowlers were a bit wide today as compared to Lord’s where they were at the batsman all the time. That in my view is the difference between 180/8 and 250/3. That is Test Cricket.

I hope the rain stays away tomorrow. I suspect though that we might have to go to the Oval with two draws – both sides having been robbed once.

Two techniques, two results…. both Out!

We’ve seen two seperate ways of playing spin bowling recently – Tendulkar plays in the classic modern way, with bat never going past the pad in defense, and tucked behind the pad for the leave. An inadvertent straight ball from Monty left him with no chance of defending off the pitch.

Matt Prior on the other hand, uses the current English theory of playing Kumble with bat in front of pad. I suspect this allows more late adjustment, but if you are not good enough to do it, someone like Kumble will tease you out, like he did with Prior, causing him to push out far away from his front pad for Dravid to snaffle the catch at first slip.

Probably tells you why batsmen have traditionally chosen not to play like Prior. In these two examples however, it turns out the neither method proved successful….

India doing well. Ideal conditions for swing bowling, suggested that no batsman was on top of the situation. No surprises there, other than in “batsmen must fire” world, where batsmen make runs because they choose to do so and nothing else comes into it.

Akash Chopra on the Tendulkar and Dravid dismissals…

Akash Chopra writes about the Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid dismissal’s in the second innings at Lord’s and pretty much seconds my assessment that the Tendulkar ball was not the arm ball.

Two days ago, i wrote – “Sachin Tendulkar fell to a Monty Panesar stock delivery which not only didn’t turn, but also didn’t move naturally down the slope! It was not the arm ball as has been suggested (the seam was not pointed towards fine leg, neither was it perpendicular to the direction of flight). Assuming that specialist batsmen make the effort to read a spin bowler from the hand or atleast in flight, Tendulkar played for the expected break towards the slips. The ball was also flighted and slower than an arm ball would be. Monty’s wicket then was unintended….”

There are those who believe that Panesar did actually fox Tendulkar with the arm ball -

Shrinivas Rao at Indian Express
Dave Tickner at Sporting Life
Andrew McGlashan at Cricinfo
R Mohan on Sify
Harish Kotian at Rediff

Mike Selvey does refer to the Tendulkar dismissal but doesn’t mention Monty delivering the arm ball.

Just like Harbhajan’s barely existent “doosra”, Monty’s arm ball has taken on a life of its own, and anything which fails to turn from leg to off gets caste as something Monty does on purpose, just like anything that wasn’t a turning off break from Harbhajan had commentators (and spin bowlers like L Sivaramakrishnan… no less!) piping up …. “That was the doosra from Harbhajan Singh!” (even if it was actually the much simpler floater which is distinct from the doosra)

The common theme that seems to run through much of the reporting seems to be that accurate accounts are secondary – propogating myths and assaulting “stars” is the order of the day….

Why is it important that Monty didn’t get Tendulkar with the arm ball? Because it suggests that the dismissal was a matter of chance, like so many things in cricket – an inconvenient reality when you consider that propogating and then demolishing the “Tendulkar is God” myth is a billion dollar industry. Tendulkar is a magnificient batsman – sure, but the rules and realities of the game are not suspended when he is at the wicket. It is to his credit that he has given us the impression over the years that this is so.

But seriously – what good are commentators and journalists if they consistently discard perspective?

Is this why the English bowling is superior to Indias?

The common refrain about the “inexperienced” English bowling has been well accepted. But consider this for a moment. The following are the First class records of the six fast bowlers on view in the Lord’s Test:

R P Singh 30 matches, 5531 balls, 121 wickets at 24.07 (2003-2007)
Zaheer Khan 107 matches, 21692 balls, 442 wickets, 27.41 (1999-2007)
S Sreesanth 37 matches, 6713 balls, 118 wickets at 31.20 (2002-2007)

Chris Tremlett 69 matches, 11322 balls, 234 wickets at 26.94 (2000-2007)
James Anderson 64 matches, 10917 balls, 221 wickets at 28.81 (2002-2007)
Ryan Sidebottom 110 matches, 18336 matches, 346 wickets at 24.95 (1997-2007)

England’s attack had 69 matches more first class experience (in conditions akin to Lord’s, unlike what Sreesanth and RP may have had) than the Indian bowlers. Were they really inexperienced compared to the Indian attack?

Which begs the question – do the Indian bowlers bowl in enough number of first class games? R P Singh averages 7.5 first class games per year, Sreesanth averages 7.28 first class games per year. Zaheer averages 13.38 games per year (but that includes 16 games in 3 months in England in 2006). The English bowlers average 10, 11 and 12 matches per year. Additionally the English bowlers arguably play their matches against better players of fast bowling than Indian fast bowlers do in India – just have a look at the glittering array of overseas professionals playing county cricket.

India need to encourage more cricket of a better quality at the domestic level. It needs to be rigorous and it needs to keep bowlers match fit. The problem is not too much cricket. The problem is too little cricket. England manage their cricket season within a 5 month window – April – September.

Lets look at the first class careers of some of the great fast bowlers, just to verify how much cricket they actually played.

Wasim Akram 257 matches, 50277 balls, 1042 wickets, 21.64 (1984-2003)
Glenn McGrath 189 matches, 41759 balls, 835 wickets, 20.85 (1992-2007)
Malcolm Marshall 408 matches, 74645 balls, 1651 wickets, 19.10 (1977-1996)
Allan Donald 316 matches, 58801 balls, 1216 wickets, 22.76 (1985-2003)

All of them played more matches per year than the Indian bowlers do and three of them were significantly quicker than any of the Indian bowlers. All of them played regularly in England. All of them were great bowlers. Now lets have a look at the only great Indian fast bowler.

Kapil Dev 275 matches, 48853 balls, 835 wickets, 27.09 (1975-1993)

Kapil’s record compares more favorably than those four greats than it does with the current Indian lot.

Looking at Srinath, who was more akin to the current Indian lot than he was to the greats listed above.

Javagal Srinath 147 matches, 28618 balls, 533 wickets, 26.31 (1989-2003)

Even Srinath averaged 10 first class games per year.

All these numbers include the number of Test matches played by these bowlers, and im willing to bet that as these bowlers established themselves and became great bowlers, they played fewer first class games. While they were learning their trade, they probably bowled day in and day out.

Thats why they never bowled poorly all day and thats why their par effort was so always special.

England know this and therefore English cricketers are expected to play first class cricket when it isn’t immediatly before a Test match. Extra players selected are released to play for their county sides rather than sitting around in the dressing room. They are released because there is first class cricket being played during the Test match season.

India’s first class cricketers play lesser cricket every year than their Test cricketers do. The Indian bowlers seem to be light invariably light on match practice as indicated by their tendency to go off the boil frequently.

In a real cricketing sense – the reality of India’s domestic scene, which contributes nothing to the development of fast bowlers in merely underlined by the Lord’s Test.

The Star obsession in the press…… David v Goliath…..

Tim de Lisle asks why Indias batting “goliaths” keep falling to bowling “davids”? On the face of it, this looks like a fine analogy. But think about it…… take James Anderson’s pitch map from Lord’s and compare it to any of McGrath or Pollock’s best pitch maps. If you show them to a expert observer without identifying the author of each pitch map, he won’t be able to tell the difference.

This star mania is reaching ridiculous proportions. The simple story of the Test match was that the conditions suited fast bowling through out the game (the ball swung for the full 80 overs), and all the batsmen struggled whenever the fast bowlers got it right. The English fast bowlers got it right almost all the time, while the Indian’s didn’t get it right at all on the first day. In the end, those 150 odd runs which England made on day 1 came to their rescue.

This story obviously does not suffice – because editorial pages and columns have to filled up. It therefore becomes inconvenient to accept that if James Anderson, Chris Tremlett and Ryan Sidebottom produced pitch maps rivalling those of McGrath or Pollock or Donald in their prime, then the conditions would entail that their returns might rival those of McGrath, Pollock or Donald. If Monty Panesar can get it to drift from off stump to middle and the turn away towards the slips off a perfect spinners length consistently then he’s going to be difficult to score off.

All the expert commentary, which tells us everything about technique and tactics and strategy, has not been too keen to point out what it was that the so called goliaths did wrong in their dismissals. Sambit Bal attempts an explanation, which sounds extremely balanced – but a case could be made that anyone who’s actually followed cricket over the last 5 or so years reached Bal’s conclusion a while ago.

The stories have tended to feed the hero myth – or rather the delicious counterpoint to the hero myth which involves gleeful accounts of heroes in decline. That in its is no bad thing i suppose. But it has a couple of residual effects -

Imagine Sachin Tendulkar going out to bat. Do you realistically think that he can play normally anymore? If he makes a hundred, will be it viewed the same as a hundred by any other cricketer? If he plays a square cut, it is no longer just a square cut, but an emphatic statement that whatever cobwebs there were have been vacuumed away. If he plays a pull shot, it means that he’s fighting old age or something.

Its quite amazing that Cricket is sometimes set aside in discussions about Test matches.