What do we expect of our bowlers?

Since the beginning of the natwest series in England on August 21st, India have played 10 ODI’s now and even though one of those could not be completed because of rain (Bangalore ODI), here is a list of totals that India have conceded in those games:

Southampton: 288/2 (L)
Bristol: 320/8 (W)
Birmingham: 281/8 (L)
Manchester: 213/7 (L)
Leeds: 242/8 (W)
Oval: 316/6 (W)
Lord’s: 188 (L)
Bangalore: 307/7 (NR)
Kochi: 306/6 (L)
Hyderabad 290/7 (L)

India have conceded 280+ in 7 out of 10 games, and two of those victories have come in high scoring games (Bristol, Oval). Looking through the bowling stats of the natwest tournament, the economy rates of our pacemen in that series are shocking by any decent standard (all though not so according to conventional wisdom in India, more on that later). Here’s how they read:

Zaheer Khan 4.82, Average 67.50 runs/wicket
RP Singh 5.28, Average 31.71 runs/wicket
Agarkar: 7.11, average 44.71 runs/wicket
MM Patel: 8.23, average 26.75 runs/wicket

Coming to the three games against Australia, after the errant bowlers (the last two in the above list) had been dropped and less errant bowlers (Sreesanth, Irfan) had been picked,

Irfan Pathan 5.07, Average 35.50 runs/wicket
Zaheer Khan 6.00, Average 36.00 runs/wicket
Sreesanth 6.42, Average 22.50 runs/wicket
RP Singh 6.70, hasn’t taken a wicket

The bowlers do not seem to be able to take a wicket unless they are profligate and concede about six runs/over. The only acceptable bowling average amongst those is Zaheer Khan’s in England. And there it appears that his efforts in the Test series earned him the respect of the English batsmen – they seem to have decided to play him out.

There used to be the adage that 3/50 is better than 0/35 in 10 overs in an ODI. Both seem to be too much to expect from an Indian paceman. There is no point in blaming the spinners, because by the time they come on to bowler, the batsmen are set and the batting side is on the attack. The fifth bowler doesn’t seem to be much of a problem either – the fifth bowlers overs go for 70 in 10 overs, while the main bowlers go for anything between 55-70! Most of our pacemen cannot be relied upon to bowl an entire over of decent line and length. Batsmen never seem to have to improvise at all to take 6 an over of our bowlers. Conceding 90-100 runs in the last 10 overs seems to have become par for the course for India.

And yet, the great concern seems to be whether or not the “senior” batsmen should be in the side! If they are asked to perform miracles in every game, then they will fail more often than they will succeed. If you lined up the 6 greatest batsmen in history, it would be no different. The selectors in this case can’t do anything, because the best bowler in India – Munaf Patel, seems to be on the wrong side of public opinion (this time his fitness is not the issue). The “best” bowler in India – Sreesanth can’t seem to figure out how to bowl a good line and length. The in form bowler – RP Singh seems to get the rough end of the stick – one bad effort and he’s out of the side. Sreesanth is exasperating from the selection point of view, because amidst all his rubbish, he seems capable of producing some wicket taking gems.

It is interesting – the two best bowlers in India – Munaf Patel and Sreesanth, each have problems of temperament for which there seems to be no solution. One has drawn the rough end of public opinion and has the coach complaining about him behind his back, the other has drawn public adoration (misguided adoration in my view, detrimental to his own development), and seems to have nobody who can keep him on track! Inspite of having about 6 fast bowlers to choose from, India seem to be unable to decide a true pecking order. Venkatesh Prasad needs to explain a few things in my view.

As for the senior batsmen, not only do they face decisively superior bowling (i wonder what Dravid, Tendulkar and Yuvraj would average in Tests and ODIs if they were able to face the Indian bowling) than the opposition batsmen face, they also face ridiculously stiff targets game after game. India has lost the last 3 games (in my view they would have lost at Bangalore as well) because they do not have a clue as to how they are going to control the runs or organize their overs when they bowl.

Typically though, it is Dhoni (or Dravid before him) or the batsmen who will draw the public ire. If not them it will be the selectors or the “BCCI”. The bowlers seem untouchable. This is not surprising – for to pay attention to the bowler is to pay attention to cricket. Everybody other than the pacemen have been doing their bit – the selectors have made good selections, the BCCI has hired bowling and fielding coaches and the batsmen have had a fine year.

5 of the top 13 run getters in ODI cricket in the year 2007 are Indians. The top 15 run getters in ODI cricket for the year 2007 include 5 Indians, 3 Australians, 3 Englishmen, 2 South Africans and 2 Sri Lankans. There are only 2 Indians amongst the top 20 wicket takers in ODI cricket this year – Zaheer Khan and Ajit Agarkar.

We have come to accept 6 runs/over as a par performance from our bowlers. It is not. Even if ODI batsmen have become more aggressive, good bowlers still go for 48-50 runs in their 10 overs where they would go for 35-40 a few years ago. Out of the top 20 wicket takers in ODI cricket this year, if you leave out Zaheer Khan, Ajit Agarkar and Ryan ten doeshate of the netherlands, the other 17 bowlers have all conceded 4.7 runs/over or less.

A poor economy rate almost never means that a bowler is “aggressive” and “looking for wickets” all the time. A look at economy rates for India in 2007 is revealing. They are as follows:

In 2007 (figure in the bracket is the bowling average):

Harbhajan bowled 99 overs at 4.34 (61.42)
Ganguly bowled 53 at 4.71 (41.66)
RP Singh bowled 91 overs at 4.74 (33.23)
Zaheer Khan bowled 204 overs at 4.81 (32.80)
Munaf Patel bowled 88 overs at 4.83 (25.17)
Piyush Chawla bowled 111 overs at 4.84 (31.83)
Ajit Agarkar bowled 154 overs at 5.20 (32.08)
Sachin Tendulkar bowled 72 overs at 5.59 (44.77)
Yuvraj Singh bowled 69 overs at 5.85 (45.00)
Sreesanth bowled 84 overs at 6.08 (30.05)

Our best bowlers this year in terms of economy rate have been Harbhajan Singh, RP Singh, Zaheer Khan and Munaf Patel. All the part timers (Sehwag has gone for 4.82) have done better than Sreesanth. Zaheer and Harbhajan seem to have lost the art of taking wickets. Munaf – i’ve said enough about him already.

We can’t seem to play a steady bowling line up. Looking at the numbers above, its not hard to see why. And yet, we have a bowling coach who complains to the press about the one bowler who’s record in 2007 compares favorably with that of any of the top bowlers around the world.

Its not hard to see where the problem lies – not just with the bowling, but with our expectations from our bowling. In my view it is indicative of our skewed understanding of cricket. Anybody in an cricketing community (including our own) will tell you that quality bowlers are gold. Ian Chappell, talking about captaincy on cricinfo recently said “it helps if a captain has a couple of good bowlers”.

If the same standards that are applied to Tendulkar were applied to our bowlers, most of them wouldn’t last more than 2 months. The reason they last, is because there are no Tendulkar’s in the bowling line up. This points to a crucial point that the “give the youngsters a chance” crowd don’t seem to understand. Chances have to be earned – they can’t be handed over by default, simply to be nice to somebody. Whats happening in the bowling line up is that we are so used to mediocrity, that we don’t know what to do with genuine quality when we see it (Munaf Patel). Some of us expect him to be a tearaway quick, when the true measure of his quality lies in the fact that he was able to modify his method to being an accurate brisk medium fast bowler. Some of us are stuck up on his alleged “attitude” problem. Fitness is a different issue. It is also the most professionally dealt with issue (mainly because the public doesn’t interfere with it).

This Australian series is pretty much lost right now. A miracle might come about – but if it does, then that’s precisely what it will be – a miracle. It will not be Dhoni’s fault, it will not be the fault of the batting ….. the cause of defeat is down to conceding 300 in nearly every game. Bowling is our bogey. And it has been so for so long that we can’t even identify it anymore. We seem to prefer the madness of Sreesanth (which results in him going for 6 an over – the worst among all our bowlers – specialist or otherwise this year).

If that is all we expect of our bowlers, then lets sit back, and watch India get pummeled to the tune of 6 an over and then get ready to belittle our batsmen for not performing miracles game after game.

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.

The difference lies with the bowling…… Lord’s Test, Lunch Day 3

At lunch on the third day England were 8/0, with a lead of 105. Those 8 runs came due to one leg side half volley and one brilliant stroke. Contrast that with England – where Anderson and Sidebottom gave an exhibition of swing bowling and made full use of conditions which enabled the ball to swing for the full 80 overs (by contrast, the cricket ball does not swing after the first 10-15 overs in India or in Australia even). Tremlett’s was a quality supporting role.

There can be very few complaints about the Indian batting, almost all the wickets fell to good balls, and there were a lot of other very good balls which didn’t get wickets. The difference in this game is that India bowled rubbish on the first day and let England reach 200/1. Zaheer Khan’s opening over in the second innings was shocking, especially when you consider that he was bowling at Andrew Strauss who is arguably the weaker of the two opening batsmen.

All in all England have out-bowled India in this game so far, and it doesn’t look like India have the quality or the consistency in their bowling ranks to match them.

Jogging Zaheer Khan’s memory….

I apologize for the title of this thread…. but he has been taken to the cleaners by the commentators at the end of day 1. He didn’t bowl well and much of the commentary has singled him out. Cricinfo writes about pedestrian bowling, Geoffrey Boycott has called it rubbish, as have other commentators.

It would be useful to take the reader back to Brisbane 2003. The first day was similarly woeful and the papers declared “Indian Summer Over!”, clearly fortified with a substantial dose of Aussie bluster. Australia had reached 2/262 in 62 overs on a shortened first day in conditions which were bowler friendly. The next day, the chastised bowling attack returned to demolish the Australians for 323 (8/61 on the day). Day 1 at Lord’s was not quite so bad – the English line up is not quite the Australian batting of 2003-04 and the bowlers recovered nicely in the latter stages of the day. Anil Kumble has been solid as a rock and England seem to treat him with great reverence.

If inspiration is necessary, then Brisbane 2003 stands out. It triggered a brilliant few weeks for India on the Australian tour.