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 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…

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.

India v Pakistan, Kolkata Test, Day 2

It was a Day of many firsts at Kolkata. Yet, it was something this batting line up have done quite often in this decade. Six of India’s top 7 scored atleast 50, as India piled up 5/616 declared in 152 overs in their first innings at Kolkata. For Sourav Ganguly, the century at Eden was the icing on his comeback cake, with the red cherry on top as Navjot Sidhu would say. For the spectators at Eden, things just got better and better. First, Wasim Jaffer played a truly brilliant innings and in pure batting terms out-shined his illustrious colleagues in the middle order. Rahul Dravid score a careful, combative fifty before being evicted due to umpiring error. Tendulkar scored 82 of the easiest runs he may ever have scored in Test cricket. Laxman and Ganguly made hundreds, and Dhoni made a characteristic fifty full of dot balls and muscular strokes to round things off.

Even God might not have been able to script it better. Geoff Lawson and the Pakistan team management might contest the fact that God had anything to do with India’s brilliance. They had to pick a clearly sick Shoaib Akthar because Yasir Arafat had not arrived yet. That Shoaib on antibiotics, weakened to the extent that he couldn’t even deliver his second over convincingly, was considered better than the next available bowler ought to worry Pakistan. That they’re judgement proved to be correct ought to worry them even more. If the three Indian batting innings in this series have revealed anything, it is that the other three bowlers in the Pakistan line up are just making up the numbers. Danish Kaneria can be effective, but he needs somebody to build pressure at the other end. Neither Sami nor Tanvir did that convincingly. Geoff Lawson’s defense of his bowlers was spirited, and his position that his bowlers infact did well on a batting pitch will earn him the gratitude and respect of his team, but it begs the question – Does conceding 5/616 at 4 an over, even on a “batting pitch” constitute a “good effort”? Lawson mentioned that he thought they had Sourav Ganguly early in his innings. I can only assume he was referring to a couple of close LBW appeals – in each of those cases replays showed that the umpire had got it right, that the impact was outside off stump, and since Ganguly was offering a shot he could not be given out. Lawson neglected to mention that they got the biggest fish of them all thanks to Billy Doctrove’s sympathetic index finger. Given Dravid’s desire to get back into his groove, they might still have been bowling at him right now had that decision not gone Pakistan’s way! Further, when India were bowling late on day 2, there were a couple of appeals against the left handed Salman Butt, with Kumble bowling round the wicket for LBW – where Butt padded up, and hawkeye showed that the ball was going on to hit the stumps. These were, strictly speaking even more likely to be out than any appeals against the Sourav Ganguly.

In each of the instances, the umpires got it right i think. Butt could not have been given out in those instances because there was simply too much doubt and too much speculation required. I also agree with Lawson’s defense of his bowlers. He had little choice and he defended them gallantly.

The wicket is still playing well and Pakistan will hope that it holds together until the end of day 3. Even if it does, and even if they bat out of their skins and save the follow on, they will have to save the game in their first innings. Batting out even 70-80 overs on the 5th day, when the wicket is likely to become a Kumble Special will be extremely difficult. But, it isn’t as simple as it seems for India. They have their own bowling worries. Munaf Patel still looks uncertain, Zaheer seemed to have hurt his ankle yesterday (but he returned) and Harbhajan Singh is on a comeback trail. This is where he will be expected to deliver cheap wickets. He will be under pressure. Rameez Raja prescribed a strategy for Pakistan in his audio report for Cricinfo – play Kumble with mainly with the bat and Harbhajan Singh mainly with the pad. Given the pressure Harbhajan Singh will be under to deliver, Pakistan may just consider attacking him, at least early on day 3.

Managing Harbhajan will be Kumble’s biggest challenge as India look for the remaining 19 wickets.

A busy week in Indian Cricket…..

For those of us who are interested in Cricket, this has been an interesting week. India are playing Pakistan, South Africa host New Zealand and the Australians host Sri Lanka. The old rivalry is a bit muted this time around, largely because India seem to play Pakistan very often. South Africa v New Zealand is one of the more interesting series in Cricket – both sides play a very similar brand of cricket. The difference this time around is that both sides have a quality spinner. Australia have just rattled up 550 against the Sri Lankans on a flat pitch at Brisbane, handing Murali his worst mauling in living memory. India’s pacemen continue their woeful form. This time the beneficiary is Pakistan. Since India won the Test series in England, India’s pacemen have built up the following record:

Zaheer Khan – 15 games, 14 wickets at 53.21, econ. 5.47
R P Singh – 12 games, 16 wickets at 34.75, econ. 5.58
Sreesanth – 4 matches, 9 wickets at 27.11, econ. 6.77
Irfan Pathan – 9 matches, 9 wickets at 42.22, econ. 5.29
Ajit Agarkar – 6 matches, 9 wickets at 40.77, econ. 6.92
Munaf Patel – 3 matches, 6 wickets at 23.83, econ. 6.50

Of the 17 games played, India have won 7. This inspite the fact that the batsmen have done really well – including Uthappa and Gambhir – two newcomers. Will someone please ask Venkatesh Prasad what’s going on?

Anil Kumble has been named Test captain. He’s clearly the second choice. Tendulkar was the first choice. His refusal was expected, except by the Vengsarkar-Tendulkar-Mumbai Lobby conspiracy theorists. We have a strange situation right now – 4 persons have refused/quit the top posts in Indian Cricket this year – Chappell quit, Dravid quit, Tendulkar refused, and Ford refused. Many more candidates whom we know nothing about have probably refused as well. So we end up with a 38 year old leg spinner with another year of cricket in him at the most as Test captain, and a young wicketkeeper-batsman with nothing to lose as the ODI captain. This may even bring great success. I just wonder however – why is it that so many top people think it isn’t worth their while to captain or coach India?

Kumble also becomes India’s first bowler captain in 31 years. This in itself will bring with it many firsts and many interesting issues for those who are interested in them. Spin bowler captains are rare – Benaud, Illingworth, Inthikab Alam, Bishen Bedi, Venkatraghavan and Daniel Vettori come to mind as spin bowler captains. There hasn’t been a single one in World Cricket between Venkatraghavan and Vettori, except for stray games where spin-bowlers have been stand-in skippers. Kumble’s appointment marks a milestone in the spin revival led by his generation of spin bowlers after the barren 80’s. He has been a great bowler, and has the experience of over a hundred tests. He’s probably one of the most respected cricketers in the world at the moment. It will be interesting to see how he handles his side in the field in a Test match. I also wonder whether Kumble will still do the nightwatchman’s role if such a role is required. He may just tell the batsmen to deal with the music themselves!

I only wish that he hadn’t been given the captaincy after Tendulkar had publicly refused it. Not because it will cause any trouble within the team – it won’t, but because he will always be viewed as the second choice. BCCI might have been more tactful – Tendulkar himself might have kept his position to himself until BCCI made the announcement. What makes things even worse was Tendulkar’s comment about the suitability of looking for a younger captain.

Coming back to the ongoing ODI series, we can expect more of the same from India – good batting, rubbish bowling, ordinary fielding. That the selectors have named an unchanged side for ODI’s 3 and 4 suggests the futility of naming a side for just 2 ODI’s in the first place, and also the lack of pace bowling options (since that would be the area where a change would be warranted). India currently possess a group of 6 or 7 pace bowlers who are all equally unpredictable, and are all just short of being good enough to command a regular place in a top international cricket team. If anything, matters have taken a turn for the worse under Venkatesh Prasad – everybody seems to be uniformly inconsistent now, and no single bowler seems to be in good form in any game. I don’t remember the last time an Indian paceman was difficult to score off in an ODI.

All in all, there has been a flurry of activity this week, just like there is in the Civil Service bureaucracy. One should expect a similar maintenance of the status quo as well.

Oval Test – Day 2 – Kumble ton takes India past 650…..

At the end of day two, England trail India by 640 runs, and need 440 more to save the follow on. All eleven batsmen for India made at least 10, and 6 of them passed 50, one passed 100. The score summary would read -

India 664/7 (Kumble 110, Dhoni 92, Karthik 91, Tendulkar 82, Dravid 55, Laxman 51)

England have lost Andrew Strauss to what is his strength – the cut and the pull. When he plays the pull though, Strauss does not always get across to off stump to cover the line of the ball. With extra bounce, this can be troublesome, and Strauss paid the penalty for playing the wrong shot at the wrong time, using the wrong method. He was however playing his natural game. Contrast this with Tendulkar – who played cautiously and made sure that England wouldn’t get a wicket from his end for 64 overs – the longest occupation of the crease by any single batsman in the Indian innings. England need someone to play a Tendulkaresque hand tomorrow, and close one end off for India. If all the English batsmen play their natural game, both ends will be open and we might just see England following on tomorrow. As it happens, they have already lost one wicket to an unforced error.

Indeed, they’re current situation may be seen as a result of a number of unforced errors – Prior dropping Tendulkar and Laxman. That error was worth about 70 runs in actual damages. It was the punitive damage that England inflicted upon themselves thanks to those drops which hurt. English commentators have been at pains to point out that Prior has had one terrible game. The record shows that he has conceded 118 byes in 13 Test innings so far. Contrast this with Geraint Jones in the 2005 English season. He conceded 61 byes in 14 innings, and he was considered a better batsman than a keeper! In this series against India alone, Prior has now conceded 70 byes in 5 innings. India have conceded 33 in their 4 innings so far, and Dhoni, by all accounts has struggled in English conditions. Prior has not helped himself by making silly comments about “hunting as a pack” justifying his behaviour and commentary. He may yet make it to Sri Lanka, but Chris Read must wonder what he needs to achieve in order to make his place as England’s wicketkeeper permanent.

Its a good wicket, and a win will be forced by how difficult runs scoring is made by the Indian bowlers. England’s batsmen are all naturally attacking, and they have had to bat with no hope of winning only occasionally in recent times. With 664 on the board, England will have to bat 7 sessions to get a lead which might be of some consequence (50-100 runs). Seven sessions will take us to lunch on the 5th day. At which point England will have to bowl India out in 40-50 overs or so to win. It is a tall order. It is also the only way in which England can win. I don’t think Rahul Dravid will agree to go along with sporting declarations. If England bat well, and declare 220 behind by lunch on day 5, India may just choose to bat and kill the game. It wouldn’t be popular, but one up in the series, they would be justified in my view in holding on to the lead. The danger for India in such circumstances would be momentum. If England bat really well in their first innings and declare at say 450/5 at lunch on day 4, and then India meander along aimlessly and get bowled out for 150 or thereabouts, it would leave England with about 350 to get on the last day – also a very tall order
but one which England will settle for today.

Then again, Anil Kumble might just run through them on a pitch which is dry and wearing visibly with puffs off dust coming off the wicket on a goodish length. Only two players have taken 10 wickets and scored a century in the same Test match. Imran did it against India in his prime in 1983 at Faisalabad and Botham did it in the Jubilee Test at Brabourne Stadium in 1980. Alan Davidson made 124 runs and took 10 wickets in the tied Test in Brisbane in 1960, but those runs did not include a century (his two scores were 44 in the first innings and a tremendous 80 during the Australian run chase in the 4th). All three were genuine all rounders. For Kumble though, the hard part is done. It is now a matter of getting 10 wickets out of the 19 English wickets available. He has taken 10 wickets in a match outside India only once before – against Australia at Sydney in 2004.

Everyone thought that the second innings at Trent Bridge would be Kumble’s innings. They were proved wrong. The ball swung all day and it was Zaheer who did the damage. Here at the Oval though, i think there is an even stronger case for expecting Kumble to be the main Indian weapon.

The batsmen have delivered. It is over to the bowlers….

Oval Test – Tea, Day 2 – Still batting…..

Anil Kumble reached his 5th Test 50 at the Oval, becoming the 7th Indian batsman to reach 50 in this innings. The two batsmen who didn’t reach 50 must feel hard done by. Wasim Jaffer’s best start of the series was cut short by an inspired bit of field placement by Michael Vaughan. Sourav Ganguly will add Ian Howell to his list of special umpiring friends.

When the sun shone, it was a batting wicket like few others in recent times. When the clouds came, it offered a more even battle between bat and ball. The wicket has also shown signs of breaking up, with puffs of dust evident from the wicket, not from the footmarks.

Currently though, all interest is centered around whether or not Anil Kumble can disappoint the worlds statisticians and reach his century. He is currently 70 not out. RP Singh is keeping him company. Kumble has been shepherding the strike expertly, leaving RP the job of surviving a couple of balls, which RP does in his own original style – aiming an expansive drive at one, and then, chastened by the experience playing an exaggerated defensive stroke to the next one! Botham and Holding have so raised expectations by referring to RP Singh’s “array of strokes”, that it is a matter of time before RP is compelled to live up to his reputation.

This has been a perfect team batting effort. The openers got away in batting conditions, before the middle order – Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman took charge, steering the innings through a delicate phase late on the first day when the English bowlers (possibly fortified by jelly beans) got the ball to swing under an early evening cloud. Once these three had ground the English bowling to dust, Dhoni arrived to deliver the final blow – and what a blow it was! Kumble is now feasting on the remains of the English disarray in south London.

574/8. If England concede 12 runs more, they will have to do something that has never been done before in the history of Test cricket. The highest losing first innings total in Test cricket is 586. That was in the 19th century.

Meanwhile, a message has come out for Anil Kumble and RP Singh, with the result that Kumble has just crashed Tremlett past mid off. The third new ball will be due in 4 overs time.

The English pace attack has fallen away from the heady heights of Lord’s. 583/8