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.

McGrath v (Tendulkar, Lara)

Glenn McGrath recently claimed to have enjoyed an edge over Sachin Tendulkar, more so than he did against Brian Lara. It is hard to disagree with him, because Lara did better against McGrath, all things considered, than Tendulkar did. Lara also played more against McGrath than Tendulkar did, mainly on account of the fact that West Indies played Australia in longer Test series, and while McGrath missed two series against India – 1998 in India and 2003-04 in Australia, he never missed a series against the West Indies.

Tendulkar has played 21 Tests against Australia, made 1859 runs at 53.11. In matches where McGrath has been present, Tendulkar has made 662 runs in 18 innings (9 Test matches) at 36.77. This includes the one off Test in Delhi in 1996 (Tendulkar made 10, 0), the 1999-2000 series in Australia (Tendulkar made 278 runs at 46.33 in 3 Test matches), the 2000-01 series in India (Tendulkar made 304 runs at 50.66 in 3 Tests) and the 2004-05 series in India (Tendulkar played in only 2 Tests – the last 2, making 2, 8 at Nagpur in his comeback match and 5, 55 in Mumbai – in all 70 runs at 17.5 in the series).

On the other hand, Lara has played 30 Tests against Australia and 25 of those have been against McGrath. He made 308 runs in 1994-95 (in West Indies) at 44.00, 296 runs at 32.88 in 1996-97 (in Australia), 546 runs at 91 in 1998-99 (in West Indies), 321 runs at 32.10 in 2000-01 (in Australia), 533 runs at 66.62 in 2002-03 (in West Indies) and 345 runs at 57.50 in 2005-06. That 2005-06 series also consisted of 1 great innings – 226 at Adelaide and 5 failures (which produced 119 runs). Lara’s efforts in the 2002-03 series in the West Indies have to be viewed in the context of that series – it was a high scoring series if there ever was one – the wickets were the flattest in living memory (almost reminiscent of an India – Pakistan series) – 5 Australians averaged over 55 in that series and produced 10 centuries in 4 Test matches, the West Indies produced 7 centuries in 4 Test matches. 34 50+ scores were recorded in the series. It was also Lara’s most consistent series against McGrath – 5 50+ scores in 8 innings.

These figures ought to get you thinking. The 2000-01 and 1996-97 series in Australia saw Lara play 19 innings for the West Indies in which he produced two tremendous innings – his 182 at Adelaide in 2000-01 and his 132 at Perth in 1996-97. Those two innings apart, Lara produced 1 fifty in the other 17 innings. Tendulkar has played 18 innings in all against McGrath. Lara’s 4 centuries in Australia have been made at Sydney (277), Perth (132) and Adelaide (182, 226). Tendulkars 4 centuries in Australia have been made at Sydney (148, 241*), Melbourne (116) and Perth (114). Lara’s 4 centuries in Australia have come in 18 Test matches, while Tendulkar’s have come in 12 Test matches.

Indeed if you look at Lara and Tendulkar playing against McGrath, and measure a 50+ score as a success and anything else as a failure, then Tendulkar has had 7 50+ scores in 18 innings. In 48 innings against McGrath, Lara has passed 50 16 times.

The numbers reveal that Tendulkar and Lara emulate their overall tendencies when playing against McGrath. Lara is the less consistent of the two, but more capable of mammoth scores (213, 226, 182, 153). Tendulkar is more consistent, but is less capable of churning out huge scores (241, 126, 116). Lara v McGrath is defined by two innings played by Lara in 1998-99 – 213 at Sabina Park, followed by 153 at Kensington Oval. Tendulkar v McGrath as a contest is defined by the bold LBW decision McGrath won against Tendulkar in the second innings at Adelaide in 1999 (when Tendulkar ducked into a short ball which did climb at all). Tendulkar’s innings are always methodical, Lara’s are a work of genius. Therefore, when Tendulkar rattled of a clinical 126 on Day 3 in the decider at Chennai, it was expected that he would deliver that day and he did – without any frills.

What is apparent in Tendulkar v McGrath and Lara v McGrath contests, is that no other bowler in any Australian side that Tendulkar faced could trouble Tendulkar (with the occasional exception of Jason Gillespie). Where as Lara was prone to giving his wicket away against any Australian bowler. This is especially true in Australia, where Lara made 4 50+ scores in 25 innings in Tests where McGrath also featured. For Tendulkar, the corresponding figure is 3 out of 6. Tendulkar was more likely to play a particular bowler rather than play the ball. Tendulkar’s strategy against McGrath was often to wait out a good spell, where as Lara was less likely to let a good spell go by – and this is reflected by their respective consistency levels, especially in Australia.

Tendulkar v McGrath was also a direct clash in the One Day game, because Tendulkar opened the batting and McGrath opened the bowling. This was not the case against Lara. In the One Day game, McGrath did have the better of Tendulkar. This is possibly the one thing that influences McGrath’s comparison of Lara and Tendulkar.

Given Tendulkar and Lara’s overall records, McGrath probably did have an edge of both players. However, the numbers do not reflect that Lara did better against Australia when McGrath played than Tendulkar did. He produced bigger innings, but was less consistent. Lara also never played in a winning series against McGrath, which Tendulkar did.

It is a glimpse into how a cricketer makes his judgements about his peers. It is a mistake to write off a comment by Glenn McGrath as a lighthearted one – or one designed to play off Tendulkar against Lara. It does however show that McGrath rates the genuis of Lara higher than he rates the method of Tendulkar – he felt more helpless against Lara more often than he did against Tendulkar. He felt he controlled Tendulkar (as Tendulkar felt he controlled him) and never let him get away. Where as against Lara it was a far more trigger happy contest – Lara either went early, or killed the bowling. There were no stalemates in Lara v McGrath contests. Tendulkar v McGrath was invariably a stalemate – with neither willing to bite the bullet.

These have been two of the great contests in modern day cricket.

A Prince amongst Batsmen……

Brian Lara was a distant phenomenon if you were Indian. He averaged 34 against India in 17 Test Matches and played only 3 of his 131 Test matches in India. It seemed great at the time, but looking back, one cannot help feeling that it was India’s misfortune that this accomplished genius never really put the Indian attack to sword. Even so, one still remembers his brilliant 91 opening the batting in the second innings at Mohali during the 1994-95 Tour. That series was about Tendulkar v Lara, and boy wonder had stolen a march over the Trinidadian with 85 on a bad wicket in Mumbai and 179 at Nagpur. Lara’s innings was all contemptuous belligerence laced with great class while Tendulkar’s was a study in positive correctness.

This picture, taken from Cricinfo’s collection of the West Indies tour of England in 2000 epitomizes Lara for me. He was the quintessential West Indian batsman. There was a bit of Gordon Greenidge in that pull shot as there was Viv Richards in the cover drive – played low on bended knee with a typical flourish. It is said that only Gary Sobers could boast of the same high back-lift and full follow through that was signature Brian Lara. He was the only “360 degree” batsmen of his generation (360 degree referring to the arc covered by the bat from back-lift to follow through). The exaggerated shuffle never caused him to be late on the ball – a sure sign of an extraordinary eye. I was once watching a video of Lara make 153 against Wasim and Waqar at Sharjah in the early 1990’s as West Indies chased down 280 odd (a huge score in ODI cricket in the early 1990’s) – the two W’s were genuinely quick and got prodigious late swing in the abrasive Sharjah conditions. Waqar let one go – aimed fullish outside off…. and Lara’s eyes lit up as he lined it up to send it crashing to the cover boundary… only to see that the late swing meant that the ball was now headed for his middle stump instead of outside off…. and in the blink of an eye, what began as a cover drive, ended up as a screaming on drive between mid on and mid wicket – the balance as impeccable as ever inspite of the late adjustment. It is estimated that a batsman facing a genuinely quick bowler has about 0.45 seconds after the bowler releases the ball before the ball goes past the stumps at the batting end. Clearly, that time was enough for Lara to play not one, but two strokes against Waqar Younis in the early 90’s!

Viv Richards was considered the “fastest” batsman of his generation – a reputation earned in World Series Cricket and subsequent test tours to Australia in the late 70’s and early 80’s when he took on Lillee and Thomson with aplomb. Brian Lara was without doubt the “fastest” batsman of his generation.

One thing which people take for granted about Lara is his ability to concentrate for long periods of time which is at the root of his ability produce truly mammoth innings. He is the only living batsman to have reached 400 twice in a first class innings, and if im not wrong, is one of only two in the history of cricket – Bill Ponsford being the other. He has scored more double hundreds than any batsman bar Bradman and every third innings he played yielded atleast 50. Flamboyant stroke play, flawless judgement and unwavering concentration formed a happy coalition when Lara was at the wicket. To top all this, he possessed that stroke of genius which allowed him to respond to challenges. Lara was at his best when his quality was questioned. He broke Gary Sobers’s world record in 1994 at Antigua, and ten years later broke it again – at Antigua, after suggesting on the eve of the game, that he was playing well enough to do it!

In one day cricket, Lara was no less brilliant. That form of the game is evolving rapidly – the batsmen are becoming better and better at making and chasing down big scores. However much this evolution may continue, Lara is one of the few players would be brilliant in any era of ODI cricket – be it the age of Zaheer Abbas and Vivian Richards, or that of Mathew Hayden and Kevin Pietersen. His 94 ball hundred against the South Africans in the 1996 World Cup sent the favorites crashing out in the quarter final stage, while his masterly 116 gave the 2003 World Cup a classy and auspicious opening, and gave the West Indies a winning start. He made 19 One Day hundreds, 34 Test hundreds, 11953 Test runs and 10405 ODI runs. He made nearly 22000 first class runs in 19 years as a first class cricketer.

Lara leaves the game as one of its greats with many of its records in his name. Some of those records will be broken soon, others may stay for a long time to come. But that is really besides the point. Brian Lara was a West Indian original – arguably the greatest of them all……