India won the toss in the second ODI at Bristol and produced the sort of batting display that one has come to expect off this experienced line up. Playing with the extra bowler (a move which was to prove priceless later) meant added pressure on the batsmen. The Gloucestershire faithful at the County Ground were treated to some expert batsmanship. This was India’s 39th score of 300 or more in limited overs cricket, since their maiden 300+ score in 1995 at Sharjah against Pakistan. Then as now, it was Tendulkar at the top of the order who gave the innings impetus. Had it not been for his wretched luck in the 90’s, he might have had 4 international centuries during this England tour – 2 against SA, and 2 against England. This was possibly also his most commanding innings on this tour so far. Once Tendulkar had left, Rahul Dravid came in and produced the sort of innings which had made him one of the finest middle order ODI batsmen in the world in this decade. He paced his innings brilliantly without ever losing momentum. He reached 50 in 43 balls, and his next 42 runs came in 20.
There was a period during the innings, after Tendulkar had fallen where India were a wee bit careful. It was also when the English second stringers were bowling. The commentators – amongst them 2 former international captains and one former international coach, were unanimous that Rahul Dravid and Yuvraj Singh were missing a trick by not putting their foot on the pedal and letting Mascarenhas and co. As it happened, it the lull didn’t last and the four major English bowlers were taken for 93 runs in the last 10 overs. Dhoni came and went and by the end India had reached a score England had never successfully chased before.
When India bowled, it was a familiar story, but for Munaf Patel. He went for 70 in his 9 overs, but took 3 wickets. One might have said that those figures do him no justice, but for his generosity with wides and no balls. Clearly he still hasn’t perfected his modified technique and needs to work on his no balls. If you look at the 70 runs he conceded though, his wides and no balls alone cost him 19 of those runs (not counting the runs scored of the resulting extra deliveries). A further 12 were the result of inside edges (the cricinfo commentator called them “lemon” cuts). In addition to these 3 edgy strokes, he beat the bat a few other times. Other than that, he showed the priceless ability to hit any length he desired and stick to it – an absolute imperative when the ball isn’t swinging or seaming. He brought India back into the game after Agarkar had recieved his second straight hammering. The Indian catching was uncharacteristically sloppy.
That it didn’t prove fatal was down to what in my view was the ball of the match. Piyush Chawla beat Kevin Pietersen not by the straighter one, but by the in-drift in his normal leg break. The ball was delivered from reasonably close to the stumps, and drifted in towards middle stump. Pietersen was beaten by the length and was comprehensively defeated. Watch. It turned just enough to beat the bat and the pad and sneak through.
There after it was a case of ensuring that England stayed behind the eight ball. The pressure of the run rate would do the rest. India did well to stay ahead and the 9 run margin flattered England in the end. But in a sense it was fair, because what England have demonstrated in these two games is that they have superior talent lower down the order as compared to India. Chris Broad, Chris Tremlett, Andrew Flintoff and Dimitri Mascarenhas, all have all round ability. I just wonder though whether England needed Mascarenhas in their squad given that the first three were already playing. Might Monty have made a difference? The Indians would probably have played him better than the Englishmen played Powar (who bowled his classical off breaks with delightful guile) and Piyush Chawla, but even so – England lacked variety and they already have Paul Collingwood to bowl in Mascarenhas’s style. On the other hand, India at the moment seem to be a team of two halves – specialist batsmen who have done quite well, and a pace bowling department which seems to offer a choice between many equally limited options. RP Singh and Munaf Patel were accurate enough, but the senior experienced bowler – Agarkar, seems to have been targetted by England. If Zaheer is fit for the next game, it might be an interesting decision for the team management.
All in all, it was a win delivered by the batsmen and the spinners. There was little in the wicket for pacemen, and by and large they were not good enough to “not get hit” (something Wasim Akram laid great emphasis on in his bowling). He once said that his experience in ODI cricket had taught him mainly to avoid getting hit (“maar se bach jaata hoon”). It is a valuable lesson RP, Munaf and co can learn from these situations.
This series is nicely set now. England are the better balanced side, with greater depth in batting and fast bowling. They are also the better fielding side. One Day cricket allows them to still be beaten by 3-4 special performances. Today it was Tendulkar, Dravid, Munaf and the spinners who made it happen for India. Unlike in the Test series, this promises to remain the model of Indian victories in the ODI game unless India become a crack fielding outfit and a competent all round bowling outfit.
Oh yeah – and they need to keep the flu away, or atleast pass it on to the next door dressing room!
Kartikeyadate's Weblog 
Leave a comment