It is IPL time, and I am ashamed to say that I am looking forward to it. This blog post contains my analysis of each of the teams, and I then stick my neck out to make predictions so that I can look silly afterwards. Here goes …
RAJASTHAN ROYALS
General thoughts
The Royals, of course, are the team to look out for after their sensational win last year. Their performance, in many ways, made the IPL so worthwhile – it was one of those fairy tales that sports throws up every once in a while, making it worth watching. This time, however, they will be in the unenviable position of defending a reputation, with a bunch of still relatively inexperienced players, many of whom would not have encountered South African conditions before. Hence, doing a repeat is going to be hard. But after their performance last year, only a fool would write off Shane Warne and co. One thing they have going for them is that they have already gelled as a team, which is still not the case with a number of other franchises.
Strengths
The fact that they are already gelled as a team will help them. But their biggest strength, as was the case last year, has to be Shane Warne, the bowler, the captain, the all-round inspiration and provocateur. His success will be the living proof of the idiocy of John Buchanan’s multiple captain theory, and I think that knowing that alone will spur him to great heights.
Weaknesses
The inexperience of many in South Africa aside, I think their major weakness this time will be their bowling. Last time, having Shane Watson play the role of full-fledged all-rounder really provided depth to their bowling, and Sohail Tanvir was marvelous. This time, Watson will only be available as a batsman for two weeks, and then he will leave to play for Australia. They will miss his hit-the-deck, seam-up bowling, and they will miss his talismanic presence through the second half of the tournament. He will be hard to replace by a single player, and a number of players will have to step up to fill his shoes. Tanvir will also be tough to replace. Of his three possible replacements, Shaun Tait is still coming back to big-time cricket; Morne Morkel has shown himself to be notoriously temperamental; and Tyron Henderson, who is probably the safest bet of the three in the T20 format, is new to IPL, so it will be interesting to see how he performs.
Their best team
If Graeme Smith is fully fit, then at least as long as Watson is around, Rajasthan’s batting line-up should be much the same last year. Mohammad Kaif was the one disappointment then, so he will be eager to come good this time round. Warne, Munaf and Sid Trivedi are certainties with the ball, and I think the one question mark would concern Tanvir’s replacement – my choice would be Henderson. The one unequivocal failure for Rajasthan last year was their unimpressive keeper, Mahesh Rawat. This time, they have drafted in the Madhya Pradesh wicket-keeper, Naman Ojha, who is amongst the probables for the T20 World Cup. Ojha is a pretty useful bat, who even opens for MP (though he is likely to bat much lower in this line-up), and this could be his chance to shine and stake some higher claims.
Likely XI:
Graeme Smith
Swapnil Asnodkar
Yusuf Pathan
Shane Watson
Mohammad Kaif
Ravindra Jadeja
Tyron Henderson
Naman Ojha (W)
Shane Warne ©
Munaf Patel
Siddharth Trivedi
X-factor / player to watch out for
Last year, Ravindra Jadeja came into the national reckoning on the back of a strong IPL performance. Unlike some of the others who had a good IPL, Jadeja backed it up with a sensational domestic season, to force himself briefly into the Indian one-day line-up. Crucially, that domestic performance included not just lots of runs, but Jadeja being the highest wicket-taker in the Ranji Trophy. Last year, Warne didn’t bowl Jadeja at all in the IPL. This time, especially in the absence of Watson’s services, Jadeja’s left-arm spin could be as crucial as his batting. Quality all-rounders are few and far between in Indian cricket, so watching Jadeja’s progress will be exciting. Jadeja is competing with his Rajasthan teammate Yusuf Pathan for the all-rounder’s spot in the Indian one-day XI, and a strong performance from him here (especially with the ball) could make things interesting. Yusuf is yet to establish himself with any measure of consistency in the Indian line-up, and Jadeja is certainly the better bowler. Watch out for a high-stakes tussle between the two Royals teammates in this tournament.
Conclusion / Prediction
Rajasthan’s batting is definitely their stronger suit than their bowling, though if Jadeja starts producing with the ball then watch out. I think they will definitely make the semi-finals, and probably make the finals. But lifting the trophy a second time will be a tall order, since especially in crunch games in South Africa, teams with stronger bowling attacks are likely to have the advantage.
CHENNAI SUPER KINGS
General thoughts
Chennai were nearly as impressive as Rajasthan the last time around. They arguably had the best batting line-up in the league, though their bowling was occasionally weak. This time their bowling is strengthened hugely, at least for the first part of the tournament, by the drafting of Andrew Flintoff. If he is fit, then of course he can always be an impact player in any form of the game, though of late he has turned more into a strike bowler who can bat rather than a genuine all-rounder. A new ball attack of Flintoff and Makhaya Ntini will be as good as any there is in the league.
Strengths
There are many. The key for them, as for Rajasthan, is the captain. Warne is probably a better strategist, but Dhoni is every bit as talismanic a presence, and is one of the best middle-order batsmen in the world in this format. Generally, their middle order has a very strong look to it – Raina, Dhoni and Badrinath are all India players or aspirants, and they have two quality all-rounders in Flintoff and Albie Morkel. Their bowling also looks much better than last time – not just because of Flintoff, but because Ntini will enjoy conditions in South Africa more than he did in India. Indeed, I think Ntini could be the bowler of the tournament. He has been overshadowed by Dale Steyn for South Africa, while always being a threat himself, and the IPL could be his chance to remind people just what a potent bowler he can be. He has always been a better bowler in South Africa than abroad, and the shift of the tournament to SA will help him more than most.
Weaknesses
The biggest weakness for Chennai is probably their top order, which doesn’t provide as much of a cushion to the strong middle order as it might. Matthew Hayden hasn’t played much competitive cricket for a while, and he looked well past his best the last time that he did. Last year, Parthiv Patel looked quite out of his league as a T20 opener, and it is likely that Murali Vijay will get a look in as Hayden’s opening partner. Vijay is a good bat, and this is a great opportunity for him to stake some claims with selectors; but frankly, he looks more suited to longer versions of the game, and is relatively inexperienced in this format. I also wonder about Manpreet Gony. He was the surprise package for Chennai last time, but has done next to nothing since. Maybe he is someone who is ideally suited for T20; or maybe last year was just a one-off. The openers though are the biggest concern, given the disproportionate influence a strong start can have in this form of the game.
Their best team
Much of the team selects itself. Certainly 3-7 are straightforward choices, and Ntini, Gony and Balaji will join Flintoff and Morkel to provide fast bowling options. The tricky choice is going to concern the fourth foreign player, which will have to be a toss-up between Hayden and Muthiah Muralitharan. Murali is obviously more the form player. But he was a huge disappointment last year, and if Hayden is dropped, it isn’t clear who will open with Vijay. Given his experience, even an out-of-form Hayden may be worth a punt at the top, at least initially. In that case, the spin bowling spot will go to the Tamilnadu off-spinner Ravichandran Ashwin. Ashwin was the highest wicket-taker in the Challenger Trophy, which was enough to push him into the probables list for the T20 World Cup. This will be a great opportunity for him to perform at a higher stage and grab some more attention.
Likely XI:
Matthew Hayden
Murali Vijay
Suresh Raina
Albie Morkel
Mahendra Dhoni © (W)
Subramaniam Badrinath
Andrew Flintoff
Ravichandran Ashwin
Manpreet Gony
Laxmipaty Balaji
Makhaya Ntini
X-factor / player to watch out for
Albie Morkel. Flintoff is more famous, but has done little of note with the bat of late, and has constant fitness concerns. Morkel, though, is genuinely dangerous with bat and ball; will be available for the whole tournament; and will be playing on home ground. He has an opportunity to be the Shane Watson of this year’s tournament.
Conclusion / prediction
I think there is little to separate Chennai and Rajasthan, though this time their roles are reversed from last year – Chennai probably has the better bowling, Rajasthan (because of their top order) arguably has fewer concerns with their batting. I see Chennai as certain semi-finalists, though my gut feeling is that is as far as they will get. But they are good enough to reach the finals. I don’t see them winning, but they are certainly once again strong contenders. Flintoff’s fitness, and Ntini’s effectiveness, could have a major bearing on how they fare.
KING’S XI PUNJAB
General thoughts
Punjab was one of the most exciting teams to watch last year. They are full of flair players, and two of them – Sreesanth and Irfan Pathan – really stood up to be counted (which is not always the case when they play for India). In addition, they had Shaun Marsh emerge as the find of the tournament. But this year, I think Punjab has more troubles than most. Brett Lee’s form has gone completely missing since his divorce last summer (and in any case, he will only be available for the first two weeks); Sreesanth is missing the tournament with injury; Marsh is returning from a long lay-off from injury; Jayawardene and Sangakkara will be playing cricket for the first time since being shot at, and neither of them were in much form before that. Punjab doesn’t have a solid, dependable player with either bat or ball – it is a team full of flair players, all of whom are form players. And it is not clear that many of them are in much form.
Strengths
Not that many, to be honest, and they are really going to need something special from Yuvraj Singh to stand a chance of even making the semis. Yuvi was a disappointment last year; but, his uncertain Test technique notwithstanding, he has been in tremendous form in the shorter versions of the game of late. Punjab really needs Yuvi to lead their batting line-up. Their only hope is to post big scores and then hope for the best from their bowlers, and Yuvi is the most likely person to help them post those scores. Yuvi didn’t look all that impressive as captain last year; but strategies and tactics aside, Punjab need him to lead by example this time.
Weaknesses
Where to start? Their strong players are doubtful in terms of form or fitness, Yuvraj excepted. But the biggest worry has to be their seam attack. In the absence of Sreesanth, that is an attack of Lee, Irfan Pathan and VRV Singh. Lee and VRV are both coming off injury, and neither was in much form before they were injured. This means that the seam attack effectively depends upon Irfan – which, given his own notorious temperament, is a frightening thought. The responsibility might bring out the best in him, and certainly he was very good last year; but an attack that depends on him to lead it is not an attack that one can expect great things from.
Their best team
Marsh, Mahela, Sanga and Lee will be the foreign players; Yuvraj is a certainty; and Lee, Irfan and VRV are likely to constitute their seam attack. They just don’t have very many other seamers to call upon, so if they had any sense they would play both their spinners, Piyush Chawla and Ramesh Powar. This still leaves two batting spots. Last year, a number of people were tried for those spots – Karan Goel, Uday Kaul, Sunny Sohal – and all of them looked completely out of their depth. I think the best bets there might be Tanmay Srivastava, who is a very consistent performer for UP and who could be a sheet anchor that others bat around; and the talented young Goan all-rounder Ryan Ninan. Playing for one of the weaker teams in India, Ninan has not managed to catch the attention purely with statistics; but those who have seen him speak highly of his abilities. He is primarily a batsman with talent and flair, but his off-spin bowling could prove a useful addition to a weak attack.
Likely XI:
Shaun Marsh
Tanmay Srivastava
Yuvraj Singh ©
Kumar Sangakkara (W)
Mahela Jayawardene
Ryan Ninan
Irfan Pathan
Ramesh Powar
Piyush Chawla
Brett Lee
VRV Singh
X-factor / player to look out for
Ramesh Powar. Part of this is bias – portly Powar is one of my favorite cricketers. I love his attitude, I love the natural flight and loop with which he bowls, and I think he has been one of the most badly treated cricketers in Indian cricket of late. But bias apart, I think he could be a real factor. One thing that the last IPL showed us was the value of good spin bowling in this format, because taking wickets has such a large impact in T20, and wicket-taking spinners are worth their weight in gold. Powar is such a spinner; he showed through his fine performance in the one-day series in England that he can bowl most effectively abroad, even in conditions that don’t help spinners much (of course, he was rewarded for that performance by being dropped); and he is one of the few players in this Punjab line-up who has actually been in form of late. Yuvraj needs to ensure that Powar is part of the starting line-up, and regularly; he could be one of the few silver linings in the Punjab cloud.
Conclusions / predictions
I don’t see any chance of Punjab making the semis this year, and the only question of interest should be whether they can avoid the wooden spoon. There are some teams that have as many problems as Punjab, so it is quite possible that they won’t end up at the bottom. Beyond that, I can’t imagine that much good will come of this tournament for them.
DELHI DAREDEVILS
General thoughts
Delhi was an odd mix last year. When they were good, they were very good. And they were good when their fearsome top order fired, which was most of the time. But the top order was supported poorly by a flimsy middle order, and that ultimately let them down. They also had poor luck with the weather. At the end of the day, they scraped into the semis largely because Mumbai self-destructed in a crucial game; so it has to be said that, on the whole, Delhi underperformed in spite of some moments of sheer brilliance. This time, though, I think they will be a team to watch out for. They have traded the dependable Shikhar Dhawan, but have drafted in the exciting Aussie David Warner, so their top order, if anything, is even stronger this time round than last. And Daniel Vettori, who is one of the best bowlers in the world in this format, will be available for the whole tournament. Expect great things from this team.
Strengths
Sehwag and Gambhir formed the most fearsome opening combination in the tournament last year, and since then, they have continued to be destructive for India in every form of the game. A strong start counts for a huge amount in T20, so in a sense, a batting order that is strong at the top and weak in the middle (like Delhi’s) makes for a better line-up than one that is weak at the top and strong in the middle (like Chennai’s). Viru may have disappointed in the Tests in New Zealand, but his form in the one-dayers was as destructive as ever. And Gambhir is playing the cricket of his lifetime. He was already a star in the T20 World Cup in South Africa, so he will enjoy the conditions and continue to be one of the key batsmen in the tournament. I think Vettori will be another key player for them. He loves bowling in this format, and was a star in the T20 World Cup in South Africa. His lower-order batting skills will also be crucial.
Weaknesses
The middle order remains a bit of a question mark. Neither Dinesh Karthik nor Manoj Tiwary did very much for them last year, and that’s a problem at the fag end of an innings, especially in a tight chase. Since then, DK has been in fine domestic form, but Tiwary has done little of note even in the Ranji Trophy. There was speculation that he would be traded to Kolkata, and frankly, Delhi would have done better to retain Dhawan and get rid of Tiwary. Like last year, it’s the middle order that Delhi would be worried about this year, though if DK carries his domestic form into this tournament then some of that worry will be assuaged.
Their best team
Sehwag, Gambhir and Warner will be at the top, though if I was the team management I would send Warner out to open with Viru. This way, Gambhir can play at 3, which will help impart some stability to the middle order and mid-innings. The no. 4 spot is a toss-up between A.B. de Villiers and Tillakaratne Dilshan. Both disappointed last year, but both have been in terrific form for their countries since. In South African conditions, AB should get the nod first. Vettori and Mishra will form the spin duo, while McGrath will lead the seam attack. V. Yo Mahesh was most impressive last year, and should partner him. The third seamer will be a toss-up. The leading candidates would be the two left-armers, Ashish Nehra and Pradeep Sangwan, with Nehra having the advantage of having played in South Africa. However, I would take a punt on young Umesh Yadav, on whom more below.
Likely XI:
David Warner
Virendra Sehwag ©
Gautam Gambhir
A.B. de Villiers
Dinesh Karthik (W)
Manoj Tiwary
Daniel Vettori
Amit Mishra
V. Yo Mahesh
Glenn McGrath
Umesh Yadav
X-factor / playing to watch out for
I would like to see what Umesh Yadav is capable of. That was a very clever pick by Delhi. Only 19, he has had a searing first year of domestic cricket for Vidharba. He is quick, very quick, and had Rahul Dravid hopping before cleaning him up in a Duleep Trophy game. The other tear-away quicks that India has brought in of late haven’t lived up to their billing – VRV Singh has faded away completely, while Munaf Patel has settled into being a line-and-length medium pacer in the mold of Angus Fraser. Delhi’s other seamers are all military medium pace, so Yadav will give them something different. He will also enjoy bowling in South African conditions. Regardless of the role he plays for Delhi, he will benefit greatly from his stint with the team, especially since Delhi’s bowling coaches are T.A. Sekhar and Dennis Lillee (not to mention the benefits of playing alongside McGrath). Watch this young lad’s progress – it could have a bearing on Indian cricket in years to come.
Conclusions / prediction
In terms of quality, there is little to separate Delhi, Chennai and Rajasthan, though the Royals probably have the weakest bowling attack of the three. However, I am going to stick my neck out and say that Delhi has the best chance of winning of the three. This is because top order batting and wicket-taking spin bowling have disproportionate effects in T20 cricket. Delhi’s top 3 are scary good, and they have the best spinner in the world in this format in the ranks, supported by another spinner who showed last year that he too could be a match-winner. They also have a terrific fielding outfit, with de Villiers alone worth 10 runs a game in the field. And finally, unlike with Rajasthan and Chennai, their key foreign players will be available for the duration of the tournament. I think these guys have what it takes to go all the way.
MUMBAI INDIANS
General thoughts
Mumbai was a disappointment last year. They were the most expensive franchise, and the most star-studded, but spent the early part of the tournament worried about Tendulkar’s injury and Harbhajan Singh’s shenanigans. And then, when they recovered to have a shot at the semis, they self-destructed in a crucial game. This year they have made a big acquisition in J.P. Duminy, and look again like a very well balanced side. Only a fool will write them off completely, so I won’t do so. And yet; and yet …
Strengths
They have many. Two of their weak links from last year, Sachin and Bhajji, are now playing very well; they have acquired Zaheer Khan from Bangalore; and they have two quality all-rounders in J.P. Duminy and Dwayne Bravo, both of whom will be available for the whole tournament. They have class at the top of the order, quality and versatility in the middle, and a strong bowling attack. They need to be taken very seriously.
Weaknesses
I think Shaun Pollock will be hard to replace. He was terrific with the ball last year, and his lower order batting has always been vital in any form of the game. Zak replaces him as a bowler, and Duminy comes in as a batting all-rounder, but given that Mumbai has traded Ashish Nehra to Delhi, I think they are still one quality seamer short. Lasith Malinga and Dilhara Fernando will be fighting to partner Zak with the new ball, but the former is coming off a long injury, while the latter is notoriously unreliable. Zak himself can occasionally go for a few, even when bowling well, so against a team that has a strong top order, like Delhi, they could struggle.
Their best team
Jayuasuriya and Sachin will obviously open, and Duminy, Bravo and Abhisekh Nayar will form a strong trio of all-rounders at 4, 5 and 6. Yogesh Takawale was most impressive behind the stumps last year, and should retain the keeper’s spot. Zak, Bhajji and Dhawal Kulkarni are certainties with the ball, and, if fit, Malinga would be a better bet than Fernando as Zak’s new ball partner. So the only question really concerns Robin Uthappa’s replacement at 3. They have the option of playing Shikhar Dhawan, who was so good for Delhi last year, but who has done little of note since. I would personally prefer Ajinkya Rahane, an extremely talented opening batsman who has been in phenomenal form on the domestic circuit. Rahane is amongst the probables for the T20 World Cup, and on form, makes a more compelling case than Dhawan.
Likely XI:
Sanath Jayasuriya
Sachin Tendulkar ©
Ajinka Rahane
J.P. Duminy
Dwayne Bravo
Abhisekh Nayar
Yogesh Takawale (W)
Harbhajan Singh
Zaheer Khan
Lasith Malinga
Dhawal Kulkarni
X-factor / player to watch out for
Obviously, Duminy. He has been one of the most exciting players in world cricket over the past few months, and is one of those players who have the ability to make the sort of all-round impact than Shane Watson made last year. He was an expensive acquisition, so there will be pressure on him. It will be interesting to see how he adapts to this challenge.
Conclusions / predictions
There is so much that is good about this side, and I certainly expect them to reach the semis. But somehow, I don’t see them going all the way, or even making the finals. Some of this is just gut feeling. Basically, their leadership trio of Sachin, Pollock (now the coach) and Jayasuriya are champions; but none of them have had that extra aggression, that aura, that oomph, to be successful captains. Each one of them, indeed, was quite mediocre when leading his respective country, even though each of them is such a thinking cricketer. In T20, having a captain who can do something extraordinary, who can think on his feet, who can make something special happen at the spur of the moment, is crucial in a crunch game. Warne and Dhoni have proven themselves to have that ability; I think, based on what I saw last year, that Viru potentially does as well, his poor captaincy in the Napier Test notwithstanding. I just don’t think Sachin has that, and I don’t think anyone in the Mumbai leadership team has it. They will play good, solid, professional cricket. But will they play inspired cricket? I have my doubts.
KOLKATA KNIGHT RIDERS
General thoughts
Last year, they were a talented outfit that didn’t quite get it together. This year, with Chris Gayle available for some of the tournament and Brendon McCullum available for all of it, I thought they would be dangerous floaters – until John Buchanan came up with his ludicrous multiple captains theory. Now, I feel that Kolkata will have enough off-field problems to field many inches of column space in the weeks to come. Lucky for Buchanan the tournament has been moved to South Africa – Calcutta would have been too hot for him to handle!
Strengths
Kolkata has some pretty talented players, though the two key ones are the ones we saw too little or nothing of last year, McCullum and Gayle. Gayle will only be available for two weeks, but he can be as dangerous as Sehwag at the top of the order, and his off-spin is more than useful. McCullum, I think, is simply remarkable. He is yet to show consistency as a Test batsman, but he has already, more than amply, demonstrated just how devastating he can be in the shorter formats. His availability for the duration of the tournament will be significant for Kolkata, and make their batting far more solid than it was last year.
Weaknesses
John Buchanan. He was hailed as a great coach for what he did with Australia – but the team was good enough that anything he did would probably have been met with success. Frankly, I think that the multiple captains idea is ridiculous. T20, perhaps more than any other format, hinges on critical moments in the game, and having one person who can lead, think on his feet, take charge, and take responsibility is crucial. This was evidenced last year, when the two teams with the best captains made the finals. But more than the merits or demerits of the experiment, the problem lies with the way Buchanan went about implementing it. Clearly, he did not take Ganguly properly into confidence, and to head into a tournament where the captain and coach aren’t thinking together, and don’t trust each other, is hardly an ideal situation – echoes of Greg Chappell all over again. The other captains / leaders / strategists / whatever they are called haven’t worked with Ganguly, or with each other; you would think that even if this hare-brained idea was to work, it could only work amongst people who have already played with each other extensively. If Buchanan thinks that Ganguly doesn’t merit an automatic place in the XI and should be replaced by another captain, then he should have just had the courage and honesty to insist upon that rather than play these shenanigans. I think Buchanan has ensured that whatever chance Kolkata had to ensure some upward mobility has now gone up in a puff of dust. If KKR wants to be a force to reckon with in the coming years, they need to be thinking of another coach down the line.
There are also problems in the line-up, and the biggest concerns the absence of a quality all-rounder. Gayle sort of fits the bill, but he’s around only for two weeks, and he’ll be the first to admit that he’s primarily a batsman who can turn his arm around. In T20 cricket, having all-rounders is very important. You can get away with it if, like Delhi, you have superlative specialists (though I personally think that the way he is batting, Vettori qualifies as an all-rounder for them). But Bengal’s excuse for an all-rounder is L.R. Shukla. Compare that to, say, Mumbai, who have Duminy, Bravo, Nayar and Jayasuriya, each of whom is capable of a quick 50 and 4 overs. I am amazed that Kolkata spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Mashrafe Mortaza, who may not even make their final XI, and completely ignored another Bangladeshi, Shakib al Hasan, who is the no. 1 ranked all-rounder in one-day cricket according to the ICC rankings. An indication again of the complete absence of thought and planning that seems to be going into this franchise.
Their best team
I would open with Gayle and Ganguly, only because I think McCullum (like Gambhir for Delhi) is better played in the middle order, where his versatility will be handy. David Hussey and the impressive Wriddhiman Saha would be other middle-order batsmen. I would also give a chance to young Cheteshwar Pujara, who has been such a success in domestic cricket for Saurashtra. It will be interesting to see how he can adapt to this format, given that he primarily a technical player. But KKR had a flimsy batting line-up the last time around, and Pujara could provide some crucial solidity. Shukla will be their “all-rounder”, such as he is, and Ishant Sharma and Ashok Dinda will lead their attack. I would play both their international spinners, Ajantha Mendis and Murali Kartik, since I think Mendis is much more likely to make a mark than Mortaza.
Likely XI:
Chris Gayle (C?)
Sourav Ganguly (C?)
Cheteshwar Pujara
Brendon McCullum (C?)
David Hussey (C?)
Wriddhiman Saha (W)
L.R. Shukla (C?)
Murali Kartik
Ishant Sharma
Ajantha Mendis
Ashok Dinda
X-factor / player to look out for
Ajantha Mendis. Watching this genius bowl was one of the highlights of 2008 for me, and in a format where wickets really count, Mendis could be a real factor for KKR. It is true that the Indians handled him better in January than they did last summer; but many of the batsmen he will bowl to would not have faced him before, and I think he will enjoy considerable success in the tournament. It will certainly be good for the game if spinners like Mendis and Powar thrive, as I expect them to.
Conclusions / predictions
I actually think Kolkata is in a better position than last year, because they can draw more extensively on Gayle (who missed the tournament entirely last year), McCullum (who could only play the first couple of games) and Mendis (who was part of the outfit, but for some reason didn’t get a game). But they failed to gel as a team last year, and by all indications they will fail even more spectacularly to do so this year. Their “main” captain, Ganguly, is probably someone who wouldn’t be entirely sure of his own place in the XI had he not been such an icon. They don’t have a quality all-rounder, and their seam attack is led by one person (Ishant) who was a huge disappointment last year, and who perhaps hasn’t entirely adjusted to the T20 format; and another (Dinda) who has been in poor form of late in domestic cricket. Their bowling success depends hugely on how much Mendis can deliver, but I think their batting is stronger than it was last year. Still, I don’t see them making the semis.
BANGALORE ROYAL CHALLENGERS
General thoughts
Bangalore was the Horror of 2008. Deccan was the worse team, but Bangalore’s misery was more public and more ridiculous. I didn’t think very highly of Vijay Mallya’s decision to replace Dravid with Pietersen as captain, but nonetheless I think Bangalore is better positioned this year than last. Some of that has to do with the fact that they have so many South Africans in their ranks, and so probably have more “home advantage” than any other team. But even more, it has to do with their acquisition of Jesse Ryder, who I think will prove a far more valuable player than KP (who will only play for the first two weeks anyway). I think Bangalore, more than Kolkata, is likely to be the dangerous floater of the tournament.
Strengths
Ryder. The India series in New Zealand was the first time I got to see him, and I have to say I am so impressed. What is most impressive is that his technique is impeccable – he plays absolutely straight, and has so much time to play his shots. One of Bangalore’s major weaknesses last year was their opening batting, and Ryder and Robin Uthappa (whom they have acquired from Mumbai) look a far better bet than anything they managed to put together last time. Another major weakness was fielding, as Bangalore had the worst fielding unit in the league; Ryder’s electric fielding abilities will boost that department too. Add his useful medium-pace, and he is in the running for being Watson-of-the-year.
I think Bangalore will also see an improved Dale Steyn. Steyn was a disaster last year, as he clearly thought he was getting a very well-paid holiday and put in no effort. I think he will be a different proposition in South African conditions, and I don’t think he’ll be allowed to get away with such a slipshod attitude by the new coach Ray Jennings.
Weaknesses
Two of Bangalore’s key middle-order batsmen, KP and Dravid, will leave after two weeks (the latter for the birth of his child). KP could be well replaced in the 11 by Ross Taylor, but I think the gap left by Dravid’s departure will be hard to fill. (In the very public and constant tirade that Mallya kept up against Dravid last year, it is easy to forget that, while officially “out of form” and “unsuited to the format”, Dravid was Bangalore’s top run-getter by some distance). They will also have a captaincy gap. Jacques Kallis will take over from KP; but Kallis is no more obviously suited to this format than Sourav Ganguly, and has very little captaincy experience. So even if they get off to a good start, sustaining it without Dravid and KP will take some work. Their bowling is also weaker than last year, since they have traded Zaheer Khan to Mumbai. A better performance from Steyn could make up somewhat for the deficit, but someone else needs to bowl Zak’s 4 overs, and it’s not clear that gap can be easily filled.
Their best team
The top 4 select themselves, and Kallis’s all-round abilities should see him take the no. 5 spot even though he was so disappointing last year. Virat Kohli will take the last middle order spot. If Ryder, KP, Kallis and Steyn play as the foreigners, there will be no place for Mark Boucher. While Sreevats Goswami would be the obvious keeper in his absence, I would actually ask Uthappa to don the gloves so that Bangalore can play the extra bowler – their bowling is weak enough to require that. Steyn and Praveen Kumar will take the new ball, while Kumble is the spinner. Their back-up seam attack will be constituted by Pankaj Singh, who was acquired from Rajasthan; and UP’s young all-rounder Bhuvneshwar Kumar, about who see more below.
Likely XI:
Jesse Ryder
Robin Uthappa (W)
Rahul Dravid
Kevin Pietersen ©
Jacques Kallis
Virat Kohli
Bhuvneshwar Kumar
Anil Kumble
Praveen Kumar
Dale Steyn
Pankaj Singh
X-factor / player to look out for
Bhuvneshwar Kumar. He, Umesh Yadav and Ravindra Jadeja are the three young Indians to pay attention to in this tournament. BK is only 18, but had a terrific season as an all-rounder for UP, getting crucial wickets at first-change and playing key, hard-hitting innings down the order. Acquiring him was a smart move, and the IPL will be a great learning experience for him. He could be someone to look out for in Indian colors in years to come.
Conclusions / predictions
I still think reaching the semi-finals will be a tall order for Bangalore, especially once KP and Dravid depart. But I think they will take some steps in the right direction this year, which is more than can be said for Kolkata. Especially in the early stages of the tournament, they could cause some upsets, so opposing teams will do well not to take them too lightly.
DECCAN CHARGERS
General thoughts
Last, and least, the Deccan Chargers. Last year, they were the favorites going into the tournament, and turned out to be woeful. In the interim, they have replaced V.V.S. Laxman with Adam Gilchrist as captain, even though Gilchrist captained half the games last year and had exactly the same record as Laxman; have replaced Robin Singh as coach with Darren Lehmann, though Lehmann has few coaching credentials; and appointed and possibly sacked their CEO, except nobody was sure whether he was actually sacked or not at the time of sacking. Also in the interim, Gilchrist has played no first class cricket; Andrew Symonds has spectacularly imploded; and Herschelle Gibbs continues to classify as wasted talent. They did a terrible job at the auction, failing to pick up any really significant new signings; and haven’t even done much of a job of drafting in fresh young Indian talent, as some of the other franchises have done. How will they do any better than last year? I don’t know, you tell me.
Strengths
I am hard pressed to find any, though this represents a terrific opportunity for Rohit Sharma. He was one of the silver linings last year, and I think there will be enormous responsibility on him to salvage something for his team this year. This might be the challenge that he needs to turn his enormous talent into something more consistently productive, and if that happens, then at least some good will come of Deccan’s debacle for Indian cricket.
Weaknesses
Where to start? The entire time looks like a weakness to me. Fidel Edwards could be an exciting new signing with the ball, but he can be expensive, and is only available for two weeks. Otherwise, the bowling attack is led by R.P. Singh, who has struggled with rhythm and fitness for the past year, so that is as big a gamble as having an attack led by Irfan Pathan. The batting, I think, revolves entirely around Rohit.
Their best team
Gilchrist, Gibbs, Symonds and Edwards are the best foreign players, since their other options are all Sri Lankans who don’t quite cut it – Chamara Silva (notorious underperformer), Nuwan Zoysa (ditto) and Chaminda Vaas (past his best, though will probably come in when Edwards leaves). None of those three are good enough to make it into the Sri Lankan one-day team at present. Laxman has to play – there aren’t too many other options, and I thought he did a pretty good job before his injury last year – but I would have the talented Ravi Teja open with Gilchrist. Venugopal Rao, who was surprisingly spunky and effective last year, is the other batsman, while Pragyan Ojha and Hyderabad’s talented fast bowler Shoaib Ahmed complete the bowling attack.
Likely XI:
Adam Gilchrist © (W)
Ravi Teja
V.V.S. Laxman
Herschelle Gibbs
Andrew Symonds
Rohit Sharma
Y. Venugopal Rao
Pragyan Ojha
R.P. Singh
Fidel Edwards
Shoaib Ahmed
X-factor / player to watch out for
Rohit Sharma, because not only will his performance determine whether Deccan can avoid the wooden spoon; it will also determine his chances of making the playing XI for the T20 World Cup, and his immediate future prospects with the Indian one-day team. So there is a lot riding on this tournament for him. And Rohit finding his feet can only be good news for Indian cricket.
Conclusions / predictions
The only item of interest here will be the gripping contest for the wooden spoon between Deccan and Punjab (with Kolkata capable of sneaking a surprise in that department). I think Deccan is better qualified to finish last, because at least Punjab tasted success last year, so they will have some self-belief. This team has just not gelled together at any level, and I don’t see it happening now.
STICKING MY NECK OUT
So, sticking my neck out, these are my predictions:
Champions: Delhi Daredevils
Runners-up: Rajasthan Royals
Semi-finalists: Chennai Super Kings; Mumbai Indians
5th: Bangalore Royal Challengers
6th: Kolkata Knight Riders
7th: King’s XI Punjab
8th: Deccan Chargers
Player of the tournament: Daniel Vettori
Most runs: Gautam Gambhir [other possibility: Virendra Sehwag]
Most wickets: Makhaya Ntini [other possibilities: Daniel Vettori; Shane Warne]
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
New Zealand series post-mortem
I’m not quite sure how I feel at the end of the New Zealand series. On the one hand, our first series victory in New Zealand in 40 years is something to savor. On the other hand, 2-0 would have been a more accurate reflection of the difference in quality between the two teams. We could and should have beaten England 2-0, both at Mohali and at the Oval, so these are three series where the fight was truly won, but the knock-out punch not delivered. A part of me will take that – who would have thought, even a couple of years ago, that this is what we would be quibbling about? But the greedy part of me wishes for a bit more.
There are a lot of positives to take out of the series, in both the batting and the bowling departments.
The batting line-up now has a formidable look to it, and Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman all came good, while Dhoni is looking better and better as a Test batsman. Gambhir, as I have already blogged, was simply phenomenal, the player of the series without a doubt. Laxman carried on the rich vein of form that he has now shown for well over a year, and it looks, finally, like he doesn’t have a selector’s axe hanging over his head. Dravid looks like he’s back and running – a 100 in the series would have been nice, but even without it, The Wall is back and looking as solid as ever.
But in some ways, the biggest joy of the series for me was watching Tendulkar bat. This is because, not only is he making runs, but he is making runs like the Tendulkar of old, perhaps even better. This is Sachin Mark III. Mark I was the Sachin of the 1990s, sheer, exuberant, unadulterated genius (albeit often genius in losing causes, or without adequate support). Mark II, from 2001-2004, still saw a lot of runs, but a more dour, defensive outlook. A lot of the strokes from the 90s were gone, and the injuries, especially the dodgy tennis elbow, were creeping in and clearly restricting his game. After a disastrous phase from 2005-07 (which coincided, as it did for so many people in this team, with the Greg Chappell years), Sachin Mark III seems to be combining the best of I and II. Glorious shots that had been put in cold storage for years, especially the pull and the flowing drives in the V, are back. But there is also a cold, calculated, almost premeditated precision about his batting now. In the 90s, it was often as if Sachin was batting by instinct. Now, it seems like he is batting at will. He decides the tempo of his innings, decides how he wants to pace it, decides which areas he will pick and focus on, decides which bowlers to target in which fashion, and then just goes about doing it. I still feel that the long-term development of India’s one-day side would be helped if he sat out a few more games to let Rohit Sharma establish himself; but in Tests, there is no question that Sachin has no parallel, even if someone like Gambhir has outweighed him in sheer number of runs this series. Over the years, it has been easy to take Sachin for granted. But now, in the twilight of his career, every innings of his is worth savoring.
The disappointment was Sehwag, and the worry is Yuvraj. Sehwag’s blip was uncharacteristic, and it is hard to put it down to bad form when he was in such sublime touch in the one-dayers. But he failed in the Tests against England as well, so that is two series in a row where he has been falling cheaply while all the while looking in fine nick. (This is unlike in 2006-07, when he looked in no sort of form at all). Hopefully, the Viru of the big hundreds will be back soon.
Yuvi is a bigger problem, because at the end of the series it is not clear whether he has what it takes to cut it in the big leagues. I would personally give him another series – I think it is important to give someone the assurance of ten games before discarding them, and the England series was the first time Yuvi was in the team for the long haul, as opposed to being a stop-gap replacement for Ganguly. So from my perspective, Yuvi still deserves another 3 or 4 games before a more definitive verdict is passed on him.
But the problem is, it is hard for me to predict whether he has the ability for Tests, simply because he has played such little four-day cricket in his career. Pretty much from the get-go, he has been a fixture in India’s one-day side, and a constant hanger-on on the sidelines in Tests. So he has toured a lot with the Indian Test side, without getting a continuous run in the side, but also therefore without playing much domestic four-day cricket. In that sense, I think there is a real detriment to getting people into the Test side through the route of one-day cricket. There is a lot of glamour and celebrity status to be had by playing one-dayers, but I really think one’s game is better honed in the humdrum existence of Ranji Trophy cricket. Someone like Gambhir, who might seem at first sight to have taken the same route, in fact piled up tons upon tons of runs in four-day domestic cricket; not to mention runs on all manner of India A tours, including in Sri Lanka, England and South Africa. Yuvi might have lots of international experience, but he just doesn’t have that kind of four-day experience. And it shows.
This is relevant as we start thinking about the generational change of guard in our batting order. Hopefully, that is not something we need to be thinking about immediately, as I hope that Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman will carry on for another couple of years. (Laxman, after all, is only 34, which is still relatively young; and I think Sachin has a burning desire to play one more World Cup. Dravid will likely be the first of the three to retire, but he seems to be enjoying his game at the moment, so hopefully that moment is at least 12-18 months away). But it is something that is worth speculating upon.
At this point, the next generation of batsmen is to be found in two flavors. One mirrors the Yuvraj model, which are those who have become household names by being part of the one-day fold. Rohit Sharma and Suresh Raina are the two key names here, though Virat Kohli is also someone who conceivably has an international future ahead of him. Of these, I definitely think that Rohit is Test caliber; indeed, I would go so far as to say that purely in terms of natural ability, he is third only to Sachin and Sehwag amongst Indian batsmen today. But all three of them would benefit from more time in the domestic game, because the temperament to consistently play big innings isn’t yet evident. The worst thing that could happen to them is what happened to Yuvraj – for them to shuttle around the world carrying drinks for the next three years, and only getting 50-50 and T20 cricket into their systems. It would be much better if, when they are not playing shorter version cricket for India, they hone their four-day skills for their state teams.
The second mirrors the Gambhir model, which are those who have scored tons of runs in domestic cricket, and are knocking on doors through sheer dint of performance. The four people in this category are – Subramaniam Badrinath, Murali Vijay, Wasim Jaffer (yes, I still think he has an international future) and Cheteshwar Pujara. Badri has to be first in line here, and surely he would have been far more successful than Yuvraj at 6 in New Zealand conditions; Jaffer has come off one of the most sensational years in first-class cricket in the history of the Indian domestic game, scoring nearly 1500 runs; and Vijay doesn’t quite have those kind of stats, but looked so impressive in the chance he got at Nagpur (and is a brilliant close fielder, which I think is an area where we need drastic improvement). Vijay and Jaffer, of course, are openers, but either could bat at 3; or one could imagine them partnering Gambhir at the top, and having Viru drop down to 4 once Sachin retires.
Pujara is the least known of the four, but I think is a future star if he is given the proper breaks. He is technically extremely sound (and potentially an ideal replacement for Dravid as a long-term no. 3), and has made tons of runs for Saurashtra both this year and last – and hence has the sort of 4-day experience that more glamorous or well-known batsmen like Rohit or Raina don’t. It is very possible that Raina and Rohit will get a lot of media time with some good performances in the IPL, which will then ease them into the Test side because everyone will be talking about them; while someone like Pujara may not even get a game, or may struggle with the format if he does. But in terms of the long-term, I think Pujara is one of the safest bets we have. Hence, while I wish to savor Dravid, Sachin and Laxman for as long as possible, a long-term batting line-up worth nurturing (through A tours and the like) would be Jaffer / Vijay, Gambhir, Pujara, Sehwag, Badrinath, Rohit (or Yuvraj / Raina), and Dhoni. Yuvraj, in this dispensation, looks distinctly iffy. So – give him a fair run, and if he doesn’t cut it, move on. The worst possible scenario would be to keep Yuvi at 6 for the next 2 years, find that he isn’t good enough, and then have a mass exodus of the seniors as well. That will mean building a middle-order from scratch.
The bowling looks equally formidable, even though Ishant Sharma struggled in the final Test with the wind. But bowling in these conditions would have surely been a learning experience for him, and he is bound to be the better bowler for it.
The real joy though was Zaheer. Zak’s bowling now is like Sachin’s batting – he is supremely a master of his art. I won’t put him in the same league as Wasim Akram, because Akram is unparalleled (the greatest bowler I have ever seen, along with Shane Warne). But he is close, and even if the likes of Dale Steyn and Mitchell Johnson may be getting more wickets, I would suggest that purely on skill, Zak is the best fast bowler in world cricket today. His intelligence, control and versatility are simply amazing. He can bowl conventional swing, and get it to move in both directions, hitting perfect lines and lengths. He bowls a deceptively heavy short ball, and the yorker that was such a part of his armory when he first came on the scene before it dropped out is reappearing. He can bowl a bouncer off a long run-up at 125 kph and have the batsman fending because it is onto him so quickly; and he can bowl a searing out-swinger at 140 kph off a short, ten-step run. He can bowl round the wicket, playing simply on the angles if the ball is new, or getting reverse swing if the ball is old. He has become adept at controlling a cricket ball, and more importantly, unlike the Zak of old, adept at controlling his own temperament. That is the sort of maturation that we have not yet seen in Yuvraj, even though they have been playing international cricket for exactly the same amount of time.
If Zak was the joy, then Harbhajan was the surprise and revelation. I have on these pages been unstinting in my criticism of Bhajji over the past few months; but he certainly convinced me in New Zealand. The way he used the wind in Wellington to get drift was just magical. What was crucial was that he was flighting the ball, and flight is something that has been virtually absent from his bowling for the past few years. For much of the past few years, he has predominantly been a flat, defensive bowler, looking to push the ball through and hoping to pick up wickets simply by bowling lots of overs. When he tosses the ball up, he looks a completely different proposition. Of course, there were troughs as well – in Napier, when the batsmen got on top of him, he looked distinctly mediocre, suggesting again that when he doesn’t get an early wicket he retreats into a defensive shell and can be easily handled. But generally, leading the spin attack after Kumble’s retirement seems to have brought out the best in him. And let’s not forget his spunky batting at no. 8 – five crucial half-centuries at critical junctures in the past year is probably more than what Yuvraj is capable of at this point.
For me, Munaf Patel is still an iffy proposition. He did the job at Hamilton, but he remains the biggest question mark in the 11. Purely on talent, I think we need a fit Sreesanth. I would take a gamble on his temperament because his ability to swing the ball both ways at pace would nicely complement Zak’s left-arm swing, and Ishant’s ability to hit the deck, and that would really make us a versatile bowling attack with four strike bowlers. Sreesanth is someone who needs to be taken care of when he is out with injury, and we cannot afford talent like his to go waste.
While the batting and bowling look good, the real disappointment for me was the fielding. Far too many catches were dropped, both at Napier and in Wellington. Indeed, there is no point blaming the draw in the final Test on the delayed declaration, because if he had taken our catches we would have won regardless. Dravid and Laxman remain good slippers, but we don’t have a third, and Yuvraj is woeful in that position; so when those two retire, we won’t just have batting holes to fill, but catching holes. And Gambhir shows quick reflexes occasionally, but is a far from stellar short leg. With the changing of the guard in a few years, youngsters will bring in quick legs - but can they catch?
Indeed, it is because of our fielding that I would say that we cannot lay claim to the world no. 1 spot ahead of South Africa and Australia. We are close – batting, bowling, temperament, self-confidence are all there, and man for man, when lined up against the batting or bowling line-ups of either of those two sides, we can hold our own. But can we really match a fielding line-up that has Smith, Prince, Kallis, Amla, Duminy and de Villiers? Not even close, and there’s 40 runs an innings difference there, before you start counting the dropped catches.
Meanwhile, spare a thought for New Zealand. Their bowling just isn’t good enough to bowl out top teams, though their batting is halfway decent. Certainly Jesse Ryder is a real talent, not just because of his stroke-making ability, but because of his utterly tight defense. I can’t wait to see more of him in the IPL. Ross Taylor also got better and better as the series progressed, and I think Martin Guptill has talent (if somewhat suspect technique against the short ball). The real problem there is inexperience – New Zealand plays such little Test cricket against top sides. The ICC’s Future Test Program is supposedly designed to ensure against that, but like everything else the ICC does, it is a hopeless flop. So, New Zealand will only play their next Test on Boxing Day. How can a team improve its Test performances if it plays Test cricket less often than Yuvraj Singh? At this rate, with Pakistan virtually out for the count, Zimbabwe a shambles, Bangladesh still a third-rate team, and the West Indies bankrupt, one will see the development of a two-tier system in Test cricket, with terrific competition between the 4 or 5 top teams and then a huge drop in standard to the next 4 or 5. And that is bad news for the long term growth and health of the game.
There are a lot of positives to take out of the series, in both the batting and the bowling departments.
The batting line-up now has a formidable look to it, and Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman all came good, while Dhoni is looking better and better as a Test batsman. Gambhir, as I have already blogged, was simply phenomenal, the player of the series without a doubt. Laxman carried on the rich vein of form that he has now shown for well over a year, and it looks, finally, like he doesn’t have a selector’s axe hanging over his head. Dravid looks like he’s back and running – a 100 in the series would have been nice, but even without it, The Wall is back and looking as solid as ever.
But in some ways, the biggest joy of the series for me was watching Tendulkar bat. This is because, not only is he making runs, but he is making runs like the Tendulkar of old, perhaps even better. This is Sachin Mark III. Mark I was the Sachin of the 1990s, sheer, exuberant, unadulterated genius (albeit often genius in losing causes, or without adequate support). Mark II, from 2001-2004, still saw a lot of runs, but a more dour, defensive outlook. A lot of the strokes from the 90s were gone, and the injuries, especially the dodgy tennis elbow, were creeping in and clearly restricting his game. After a disastrous phase from 2005-07 (which coincided, as it did for so many people in this team, with the Greg Chappell years), Sachin Mark III seems to be combining the best of I and II. Glorious shots that had been put in cold storage for years, especially the pull and the flowing drives in the V, are back. But there is also a cold, calculated, almost premeditated precision about his batting now. In the 90s, it was often as if Sachin was batting by instinct. Now, it seems like he is batting at will. He decides the tempo of his innings, decides how he wants to pace it, decides which areas he will pick and focus on, decides which bowlers to target in which fashion, and then just goes about doing it. I still feel that the long-term development of India’s one-day side would be helped if he sat out a few more games to let Rohit Sharma establish himself; but in Tests, there is no question that Sachin has no parallel, even if someone like Gambhir has outweighed him in sheer number of runs this series. Over the years, it has been easy to take Sachin for granted. But now, in the twilight of his career, every innings of his is worth savoring.
The disappointment was Sehwag, and the worry is Yuvraj. Sehwag’s blip was uncharacteristic, and it is hard to put it down to bad form when he was in such sublime touch in the one-dayers. But he failed in the Tests against England as well, so that is two series in a row where he has been falling cheaply while all the while looking in fine nick. (This is unlike in 2006-07, when he looked in no sort of form at all). Hopefully, the Viru of the big hundreds will be back soon.
Yuvi is a bigger problem, because at the end of the series it is not clear whether he has what it takes to cut it in the big leagues. I would personally give him another series – I think it is important to give someone the assurance of ten games before discarding them, and the England series was the first time Yuvi was in the team for the long haul, as opposed to being a stop-gap replacement for Ganguly. So from my perspective, Yuvi still deserves another 3 or 4 games before a more definitive verdict is passed on him.
But the problem is, it is hard for me to predict whether he has the ability for Tests, simply because he has played such little four-day cricket in his career. Pretty much from the get-go, he has been a fixture in India’s one-day side, and a constant hanger-on on the sidelines in Tests. So he has toured a lot with the Indian Test side, without getting a continuous run in the side, but also therefore without playing much domestic four-day cricket. In that sense, I think there is a real detriment to getting people into the Test side through the route of one-day cricket. There is a lot of glamour and celebrity status to be had by playing one-dayers, but I really think one’s game is better honed in the humdrum existence of Ranji Trophy cricket. Someone like Gambhir, who might seem at first sight to have taken the same route, in fact piled up tons upon tons of runs in four-day domestic cricket; not to mention runs on all manner of India A tours, including in Sri Lanka, England and South Africa. Yuvi might have lots of international experience, but he just doesn’t have that kind of four-day experience. And it shows.
This is relevant as we start thinking about the generational change of guard in our batting order. Hopefully, that is not something we need to be thinking about immediately, as I hope that Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman will carry on for another couple of years. (Laxman, after all, is only 34, which is still relatively young; and I think Sachin has a burning desire to play one more World Cup. Dravid will likely be the first of the three to retire, but he seems to be enjoying his game at the moment, so hopefully that moment is at least 12-18 months away). But it is something that is worth speculating upon.
At this point, the next generation of batsmen is to be found in two flavors. One mirrors the Yuvraj model, which are those who have become household names by being part of the one-day fold. Rohit Sharma and Suresh Raina are the two key names here, though Virat Kohli is also someone who conceivably has an international future ahead of him. Of these, I definitely think that Rohit is Test caliber; indeed, I would go so far as to say that purely in terms of natural ability, he is third only to Sachin and Sehwag amongst Indian batsmen today. But all three of them would benefit from more time in the domestic game, because the temperament to consistently play big innings isn’t yet evident. The worst thing that could happen to them is what happened to Yuvraj – for them to shuttle around the world carrying drinks for the next three years, and only getting 50-50 and T20 cricket into their systems. It would be much better if, when they are not playing shorter version cricket for India, they hone their four-day skills for their state teams.
The second mirrors the Gambhir model, which are those who have scored tons of runs in domestic cricket, and are knocking on doors through sheer dint of performance. The four people in this category are – Subramaniam Badrinath, Murali Vijay, Wasim Jaffer (yes, I still think he has an international future) and Cheteshwar Pujara. Badri has to be first in line here, and surely he would have been far more successful than Yuvraj at 6 in New Zealand conditions; Jaffer has come off one of the most sensational years in first-class cricket in the history of the Indian domestic game, scoring nearly 1500 runs; and Vijay doesn’t quite have those kind of stats, but looked so impressive in the chance he got at Nagpur (and is a brilliant close fielder, which I think is an area where we need drastic improvement). Vijay and Jaffer, of course, are openers, but either could bat at 3; or one could imagine them partnering Gambhir at the top, and having Viru drop down to 4 once Sachin retires.
Pujara is the least known of the four, but I think is a future star if he is given the proper breaks. He is technically extremely sound (and potentially an ideal replacement for Dravid as a long-term no. 3), and has made tons of runs for Saurashtra both this year and last – and hence has the sort of 4-day experience that more glamorous or well-known batsmen like Rohit or Raina don’t. It is very possible that Raina and Rohit will get a lot of media time with some good performances in the IPL, which will then ease them into the Test side because everyone will be talking about them; while someone like Pujara may not even get a game, or may struggle with the format if he does. But in terms of the long-term, I think Pujara is one of the safest bets we have. Hence, while I wish to savor Dravid, Sachin and Laxman for as long as possible, a long-term batting line-up worth nurturing (through A tours and the like) would be Jaffer / Vijay, Gambhir, Pujara, Sehwag, Badrinath, Rohit (or Yuvraj / Raina), and Dhoni. Yuvraj, in this dispensation, looks distinctly iffy. So – give him a fair run, and if he doesn’t cut it, move on. The worst possible scenario would be to keep Yuvi at 6 for the next 2 years, find that he isn’t good enough, and then have a mass exodus of the seniors as well. That will mean building a middle-order from scratch.
The bowling looks equally formidable, even though Ishant Sharma struggled in the final Test with the wind. But bowling in these conditions would have surely been a learning experience for him, and he is bound to be the better bowler for it.
The real joy though was Zaheer. Zak’s bowling now is like Sachin’s batting – he is supremely a master of his art. I won’t put him in the same league as Wasim Akram, because Akram is unparalleled (the greatest bowler I have ever seen, along with Shane Warne). But he is close, and even if the likes of Dale Steyn and Mitchell Johnson may be getting more wickets, I would suggest that purely on skill, Zak is the best fast bowler in world cricket today. His intelligence, control and versatility are simply amazing. He can bowl conventional swing, and get it to move in both directions, hitting perfect lines and lengths. He bowls a deceptively heavy short ball, and the yorker that was such a part of his armory when he first came on the scene before it dropped out is reappearing. He can bowl a bouncer off a long run-up at 125 kph and have the batsman fending because it is onto him so quickly; and he can bowl a searing out-swinger at 140 kph off a short, ten-step run. He can bowl round the wicket, playing simply on the angles if the ball is new, or getting reverse swing if the ball is old. He has become adept at controlling a cricket ball, and more importantly, unlike the Zak of old, adept at controlling his own temperament. That is the sort of maturation that we have not yet seen in Yuvraj, even though they have been playing international cricket for exactly the same amount of time.
If Zak was the joy, then Harbhajan was the surprise and revelation. I have on these pages been unstinting in my criticism of Bhajji over the past few months; but he certainly convinced me in New Zealand. The way he used the wind in Wellington to get drift was just magical. What was crucial was that he was flighting the ball, and flight is something that has been virtually absent from his bowling for the past few years. For much of the past few years, he has predominantly been a flat, defensive bowler, looking to push the ball through and hoping to pick up wickets simply by bowling lots of overs. When he tosses the ball up, he looks a completely different proposition. Of course, there were troughs as well – in Napier, when the batsmen got on top of him, he looked distinctly mediocre, suggesting again that when he doesn’t get an early wicket he retreats into a defensive shell and can be easily handled. But generally, leading the spin attack after Kumble’s retirement seems to have brought out the best in him. And let’s not forget his spunky batting at no. 8 – five crucial half-centuries at critical junctures in the past year is probably more than what Yuvraj is capable of at this point.
For me, Munaf Patel is still an iffy proposition. He did the job at Hamilton, but he remains the biggest question mark in the 11. Purely on talent, I think we need a fit Sreesanth. I would take a gamble on his temperament because his ability to swing the ball both ways at pace would nicely complement Zak’s left-arm swing, and Ishant’s ability to hit the deck, and that would really make us a versatile bowling attack with four strike bowlers. Sreesanth is someone who needs to be taken care of when he is out with injury, and we cannot afford talent like his to go waste.
While the batting and bowling look good, the real disappointment for me was the fielding. Far too many catches were dropped, both at Napier and in Wellington. Indeed, there is no point blaming the draw in the final Test on the delayed declaration, because if he had taken our catches we would have won regardless. Dravid and Laxman remain good slippers, but we don’t have a third, and Yuvraj is woeful in that position; so when those two retire, we won’t just have batting holes to fill, but catching holes. And Gambhir shows quick reflexes occasionally, but is a far from stellar short leg. With the changing of the guard in a few years, youngsters will bring in quick legs - but can they catch?
Indeed, it is because of our fielding that I would say that we cannot lay claim to the world no. 1 spot ahead of South Africa and Australia. We are close – batting, bowling, temperament, self-confidence are all there, and man for man, when lined up against the batting or bowling line-ups of either of those two sides, we can hold our own. But can we really match a fielding line-up that has Smith, Prince, Kallis, Amla, Duminy and de Villiers? Not even close, and there’s 40 runs an innings difference there, before you start counting the dropped catches.
Meanwhile, spare a thought for New Zealand. Their bowling just isn’t good enough to bowl out top teams, though their batting is halfway decent. Certainly Jesse Ryder is a real talent, not just because of his stroke-making ability, but because of his utterly tight defense. I can’t wait to see more of him in the IPL. Ross Taylor also got better and better as the series progressed, and I think Martin Guptill has talent (if somewhat suspect technique against the short ball). The real problem there is inexperience – New Zealand plays such little Test cricket against top sides. The ICC’s Future Test Program is supposedly designed to ensure against that, but like everything else the ICC does, it is a hopeless flop. So, New Zealand will only play their next Test on Boxing Day. How can a team improve its Test performances if it plays Test cricket less often than Yuvraj Singh? At this rate, with Pakistan virtually out for the count, Zimbabwe a shambles, Bangladesh still a third-rate team, and the West Indies bankrupt, one will see the development of a two-tier system in Test cricket, with terrific competition between the 4 or 5 top teams and then a huge drop in standard to the next 4 or 5. And that is bad news for the long term growth and health of the game.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Napier Test thoughts
I apologize for being off the blog for so long. I have been traveling and busy. There is a lot that I want to write about, including the win at Hamilton and the horrific attack on the Sri Lankans in Lahore. But in order to stay up-to-date, let me just write my thoughts on the Napier Test.
My predominant feeling is one of relief that we got out of jail. Though of course, we were the ones who got ourselves into jail in the first place. The second innings batting performance was resolute. The first innings performance was simply inept. We got to see the Jekyll and Hyde of Indian batting in this game.
But really, cricket was the loser in this game, and that was because of the pitch. I don’t know why batting pitches are called “good” pitches, because a pitch like this goes against the very essence of cricket, which is supposed to be a contest between bat and ball. The problem is, this isn’t a one-off problem. There has been brilliant cricket between Australia and South Africa; but alongside that, a travesty of a game in Karachi (which no doubt would have carried on throughout the Pakistan-Sri Lanka series had it not been so rudely interrupted); and, except for one session of brilliance from Jerome Taylor, one of the most boring series imaginable between England and the West Indies. All because of third-rate pitches that offered nothing to bowlers. It is almost as if the game’s administrators are purposefully trying to kill off Test cricket – and perhaps they are. If pitches like this continue to be prepared, they will succeed. The only thing that made this game interesting was India’s own poor batting in the first innings. Otherwise, as Daniel Vettori said, you could play another five-day Test on it and it still wouldn’t yield a result.
I am particularly surprised that pitches like this are being prepared in New Zealand. Surely one would prepare pitches that suit your home team’s strengths, especially if you are playing a far superior team against whom your only advantage is playing at home? I think even the Indians would in some respects have enjoyed playing on seaming wickets more. If they are aspiring to be the top team in world cricket, then they would want to test themselves in a whole range of conditions. What is the point of turning up in New Zealand and playing on a pitch that’s not much different from what you would find for a Ranji Trophy game in Rajkot? Hopefully the Basin Reserve will throw up a more seam-friendly track. It is certainly New Zealand’s only chance of leveling the series, and it will make for better and more absorbing cricket, regardless of one’s allegiance.
In terms of the game itself, I think there were three pluses are four minuses.
The first plus, undoubtedly, was Gautam Gambhir. The pitch might have been flat, but his second innings effort was still colossal. Given the match situation; given Gambhir’s own relative inexperience in Test matches outside the sub-continent; given Gambhir’s natural game and how he had to curb it; and given the way he had gotten out in the first innings, this was a knock of the highest order.
How Gambhir has come along in the past 18 months! He was always a talent, and always a bully in domestic cricket. But first he made a name for himself as an impact player in T20. Then he developed himself into one of the most consistent batsmen in the 50-over game. Then he started playing useful Test knocks. Then he started converting those pretty 60s and 70s into 100s. And now he has shown what the best Test batsmen have to show, which is adaptability to the needs of the situation. Gambhir would have learnt a lot about Test cricket, and about himself, from this knock, and that is good news for Indian cricket.
The second plus was Jesse Ryder. What a delightful cricketer he is! His talent was in evidence when he burst onto the one-day scene a couple of years ago. But what has really impressed through this series has been his maturity. Again, good batting track; but again, like Gambhir, not an easy situation. He walked in at 23 for 3, with Zaheer and Ishant on fire, and Ross Taylor looking like a cat on a hot tin roof at the other end. And he batted flawlessly for his 200, looking impregnable in defense but taking advantage of every scoring opportunity that presented itself. Add to that his brilliant fielding and his useful dibbly-dobs with the ball, and you really have one exciting package. He presents exciting possibilities for Bangalore in the IPL, and indeed, might be more likely to turn their fortunes around than Kevin Pietersen. Given how little Bangalore paid for him, he could well turn out to be the most value-for-money player in this year’s league.
The thing that is so uplifting about Gambhir’s and Ryder’s success is how they have both overcome their own volatile temperaments to reach where they have. Both players have in the past had a tendency to hurt themselves with their feistiness; neither has the natural calm of a Dravid or a Vettori. That both of them have played such exemplary cricket for their respective sides is really something that one can only celebrate and feel happy about.
The third plus was Dravid. His performance certainly wasn’t in the league of Gambhir’s or Ryder’s, but it is good to see the confidence back. Last year, even on the rare occasions when Dravid made runs, he looked scratchy and miserable, and I have to admit that I wasn’t sure if the old form and confidence would ever come back or if it was time for him to retire. So it is good to see him prove the old adage that form is temporary, but class permanent. An assured Dravid at 3 makes such a difference to the overall feel of the Indian batting line-up. Laxman of course outplayed him; but Laxman’s was merely a continuation of form from last year. Dravid has clearly had to fight a lot of demons these past few months, and it looks like he might have won the battle.
All four minuses have to do with Indian performances. This isn’t to say that New Zealand doesn’t have minuses – their top order, for instance, is woeful. It is just that I don’t care about their minuses as I do about ours, so that is what I will focus on.
For me, four people disappointed in this game – Sehwag, Yuvraj, Karthik and Munaf. So let us consider each of them one by one.
Viru disappointed as both batsman and captain. His dismissals in both innings were unconscionable, and his leadership on the field was insipid. But I have to say that I’m not too worried about him. Sure, I hope he never repeats shots like that again. But he was just playing his natural game. Sure, it would be nice if he could have tailored his game to the needs of the situation. But we know he can do so, and indeed he did so majestically at Galle against Murali and Mendis just this past summer. As Sambit Bal wrote on cricinfo, I think his problem was that he just didn’t rate the New Zealand spinners highly enough; and cricket is a great leveler when you go in with that kind of arrogance. Hopefully he would have learnt something from this outing.
What perplexed me was how disappointing his captaincy was, given that on the one previous occasion when he captained India in a Test (Ahmedabad against Sri Lanka in 2005), he was quite brilliant. I have always admired Viru’s cricketing brain, and thought that he was also very good when in charge of the Delhi Daredevils in the IPL last year. But in this game, he just let things drift for large parts of the New Zealand innings; he seemed completely unwilling or unable to motivate the players in the field; and his field placements ranged from the extremely defensive (sweeper cover throughout the innings for just about everyone) to simply bizarre (the staggered slip cordon, which was bisected on more than one occasion by genuine edges). I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, given that he had to don the captain’s blazer on such short notice; but I have to say I was unpleasantly surprised. It is clear from this just how much this team feeds off Dhoni’s inspirational leadership.
Yuvraj might have redeemed himself somewhat with his second innings 50, but I still have worries about him. That knock came at the fag-end of a game, flat track, with the game virtually saved, and the New Zealanders knackered. For the rest of the game, however, Yuvraj was a disaster, with the bat and in the field, and the questions about his Test match abilities persist.
There are two problems with Yuvraj as a Test batsman. The first is technique, and the second temperament. That makes for a pretty comprehensive set of problems.
Certainly, Yuvi has talent. And on a flat track, he can make bowlers pay. But on tracks with a bit of nip in them, even run-of-the-mill swing bowlers would fancy their chances against him. The way he batted in the first innings reminded me of 1980s and 90s horror stories of Indian batsmen when they stepped abroad – Yuvi’s knock would have done Arun Lal or Vikram Rathore proud in terms of the utter lack of ability around off-stump. And of course, there is still the vulnerability against quality spin bowling. So if he doesn’t have the technique to play pace, and doesn’t have the technique to play spin, this presents a slight problem.
What makes up for it is that he is a confidence player, and when on song sheer confidence and ability sees him through. But the inverse also operates – when not on song, he goes to pieces in most dramatic fashion. We saw that when he sleepwalked through the tour of Australia last year – where again, it wasn’t just that he batted poorly, he also fielded like a zombie. And much of this game was the same. Good Test players are those who can battle through even when they are not on top of their game; and indeed, someone like Gambhir looked anything but fluent at the start of his second innings, but just stuck in there. I don’t think Yuvraj has the capacity, or the mental strength, to battle through tough situations like that, when he is not already in the zone.
He has probably done enough to retain his place in the side for the final Test; and indeed, he did play a couple of crucial knocks against England. And the fact that he is such a brilliant one-day player means that he will always remain in the picture for Test selection. It is probably also fair to give him a proper run, however defined, at the no. 6 spot, given that it is only after Ganguly’s retirement that this spot for him has had any look of permanence to it.
But on the other hand, if one looks dispassionately and in the long term, is Yuvi ever going to be an all-condition Test batsman? Is he really as good, technically, as either Badrinath or Rohit Sharma, who are both being kept out of the Test side on his account, and who have not been given half the chances he has? Is he really even as good as Dinesh Karthik, who has shown his ability to succeed as a batsman – in Tests, as an opener, in England – given that Yuvraj has not really succeeded in any position in Tests outside the sub-continent? Sure, he should be given a fair run – but of all the people in contention for that no. 6 spot, is he the most deserving of that fair run?
Karthik of course had a miserable game here, in front of and behind the stumps, to follow the two miserable games he had in Sri Lanka. But I am more sympathetic to him than I am to Yuvi.
First of all, I think he is in an unenviable position, because as long as he is picked in the side as second keeper, he is destined to carry the drinks unless Dhoni is injured. This means he is always in a no-win situation when he does play, and usually (as in this Test), he gets to play at short notice. Don’t get me wrong, I think DK is a pretty ordinary keeper – certainly Dhoni is a far better keeper than he is. But there aren’t that many good keepers doing the rounds in India (Parthiv Patel, in my mind, is far worse behind the stumps than DK is). Bengal’s Wriddhiman Saha might be someone to consider down the road. But the fact is, as long as the second keeper is being selected as Dhoni’s understudy, he has to be someone who can bat at no. 7 in Dhoni’s absence. And regardless of keeping skills, DK fits that bill better than anyone else.
Because the fact is, DK can bat, and he can bat well, and with spunk. He can stonewall if he needs to, and he can improvise and get quick runs if he needs to. And he has shown that, not just in domestic cricket (where he has come off a sensational year), but in international cricket. Let us not forget, that as makeshift opener, he was India’s top run-scorer in the 2007 Test series in England. Even regular openers often don’t manage that. Top run-scorer. In England. This is a non-trivial achievement. Do you think Yuvraj will ever be top-scorer in a series in England, at no. 6, let alone as opener? I don’t.
In other words, I think DK has to stay in the mix, because I think there is real talent there, and real temperament. But his place in the side has to be understood not as reserve keeper, but as reserve batsman. He is one of the best batsmen in Indian cricket today; he is every bit as deserving of a spot, as a batsman, as other aspirants like Badri and Rohit and, indeed, Yuvraj; and he has to be allowed to think of himself as someone who is legitimately in the running for that no. 6 spot. If he is taken along simply as Dhoni’s understudy, then he will be constantly put into these desperate, no-win positions that we have seen him in over the last few months. If it is made clear to him that he and Yuvraj are fighting for a middle-order spot, with his keeping abilities being a bonus, then I think that will give him enormous self-confidence, while keeping Yuvi on his toes. Certainly, if you asked me my honest opinion of who the better long-term Test batting prospect is of the two, then I would pick DK ahead of Yuvi – simply because he has proved, in spite of never having as much security as Yuvi, that he can do the job at the highest level in foreign conditions. Yuvi has not proved that yet.
But if there is a case for keeping Yuvi in the 11 for Wellington, then I see none for retaining Munaf Patel, the fourth failure of the game. That third seamer’s spot is the one that is still up for grabs. In Hamilton, Munaf did a good job, and suggested he might be the answer, at least for the time being. But in Napier, he was miserable.
This suggests two things, and I think both are true in Munaf’s case. The first is that he is an on-again, off-again cricketer. When he is good, he can be very good, but it is impossible to tell which side of the bed he will get out of on any given day. In that sense, while Yuvraj may or may not be the perfect successor to Ganguly, Munaf is most certainly the perfect successor to Ajit Agarkar (except that, unlike Agarkar, Munaf can neither bat nor field). The second is that he is good when conditions suit him, and terrible when they don’t. This pitch was a graveyard for fast bowlers, true – but all the other seamers on view on both sides, even someone with as limited talent as James Franklin, kept trying. To me, it seemed like Munaf just threw in the towel. A third seamer needs to be someone who can hold his own in all conditions; he may never win a game for the team, but he should never be a liability. I think, Munaf, too often in his short career, and especially in Tests, has proven to be a liability. I therefore would definitely replace him with Balaji for Wellington. Balaji can be a real threat if conditions favor him, but he can also bowl tightly and give it a 100% if we are presented with another belter.
So I think the two worries for India continue to be the no. 6 batsman and the third seamer. But I still think that it is a tall order for New Zealand to level the series, because, unless a real green-top is prepared, I just don’t see them as having the bowling attack to pick 20 wickets. Indeed, it could be argued that NZ has the weakest bowling attack of the eight major Test teams. (South Africa’s pace trio is scary good; India and Sri Lanka have genuine variety and versatility; Australia is looking good again now that Johnson and Siddle are hitting their straps; Pakistan, if and when they ever get to play, have two quality seamers in Gul and Tanvir; England has Flintoff, who is still one of the best fast bowlers in world cricket, and others who on their day turn up for work and look briefly threatening; and the West Indies have the genuine pace of Fidel Edwards. Vettori is a good bowler, but far better suited for the one-day game, and certainly no Shane Warne). This is why it is such a travesty that the second best bowler they have ever produced, Shane Bond, is fit as a fiddle, but cannot play because of the stupid and patently unjust ban on account of ICL participation. Bond in the side would have provided a real test of Indian mettle; and again, in his absence, it is cricket that is the loser, and administrative malice and pettiness that is the cause. Why, I wonder, did NZC tow BCCI’s line on this one?
Onward, then, to Wellington. Let us hope it turns out to be a cricket match, and not just net practice for the batsmen.
My predominant feeling is one of relief that we got out of jail. Though of course, we were the ones who got ourselves into jail in the first place. The second innings batting performance was resolute. The first innings performance was simply inept. We got to see the Jekyll and Hyde of Indian batting in this game.
But really, cricket was the loser in this game, and that was because of the pitch. I don’t know why batting pitches are called “good” pitches, because a pitch like this goes against the very essence of cricket, which is supposed to be a contest between bat and ball. The problem is, this isn’t a one-off problem. There has been brilliant cricket between Australia and South Africa; but alongside that, a travesty of a game in Karachi (which no doubt would have carried on throughout the Pakistan-Sri Lanka series had it not been so rudely interrupted); and, except for one session of brilliance from Jerome Taylor, one of the most boring series imaginable between England and the West Indies. All because of third-rate pitches that offered nothing to bowlers. It is almost as if the game’s administrators are purposefully trying to kill off Test cricket – and perhaps they are. If pitches like this continue to be prepared, they will succeed. The only thing that made this game interesting was India’s own poor batting in the first innings. Otherwise, as Daniel Vettori said, you could play another five-day Test on it and it still wouldn’t yield a result.
I am particularly surprised that pitches like this are being prepared in New Zealand. Surely one would prepare pitches that suit your home team’s strengths, especially if you are playing a far superior team against whom your only advantage is playing at home? I think even the Indians would in some respects have enjoyed playing on seaming wickets more. If they are aspiring to be the top team in world cricket, then they would want to test themselves in a whole range of conditions. What is the point of turning up in New Zealand and playing on a pitch that’s not much different from what you would find for a Ranji Trophy game in Rajkot? Hopefully the Basin Reserve will throw up a more seam-friendly track. It is certainly New Zealand’s only chance of leveling the series, and it will make for better and more absorbing cricket, regardless of one’s allegiance.
In terms of the game itself, I think there were three pluses are four minuses.
The first plus, undoubtedly, was Gautam Gambhir. The pitch might have been flat, but his second innings effort was still colossal. Given the match situation; given Gambhir’s own relative inexperience in Test matches outside the sub-continent; given Gambhir’s natural game and how he had to curb it; and given the way he had gotten out in the first innings, this was a knock of the highest order.
How Gambhir has come along in the past 18 months! He was always a talent, and always a bully in domestic cricket. But first he made a name for himself as an impact player in T20. Then he developed himself into one of the most consistent batsmen in the 50-over game. Then he started playing useful Test knocks. Then he started converting those pretty 60s and 70s into 100s. And now he has shown what the best Test batsmen have to show, which is adaptability to the needs of the situation. Gambhir would have learnt a lot about Test cricket, and about himself, from this knock, and that is good news for Indian cricket.
The second plus was Jesse Ryder. What a delightful cricketer he is! His talent was in evidence when he burst onto the one-day scene a couple of years ago. But what has really impressed through this series has been his maturity. Again, good batting track; but again, like Gambhir, not an easy situation. He walked in at 23 for 3, with Zaheer and Ishant on fire, and Ross Taylor looking like a cat on a hot tin roof at the other end. And he batted flawlessly for his 200, looking impregnable in defense but taking advantage of every scoring opportunity that presented itself. Add to that his brilliant fielding and his useful dibbly-dobs with the ball, and you really have one exciting package. He presents exciting possibilities for Bangalore in the IPL, and indeed, might be more likely to turn their fortunes around than Kevin Pietersen. Given how little Bangalore paid for him, he could well turn out to be the most value-for-money player in this year’s league.
The thing that is so uplifting about Gambhir’s and Ryder’s success is how they have both overcome their own volatile temperaments to reach where they have. Both players have in the past had a tendency to hurt themselves with their feistiness; neither has the natural calm of a Dravid or a Vettori. That both of them have played such exemplary cricket for their respective sides is really something that one can only celebrate and feel happy about.
The third plus was Dravid. His performance certainly wasn’t in the league of Gambhir’s or Ryder’s, but it is good to see the confidence back. Last year, even on the rare occasions when Dravid made runs, he looked scratchy and miserable, and I have to admit that I wasn’t sure if the old form and confidence would ever come back or if it was time for him to retire. So it is good to see him prove the old adage that form is temporary, but class permanent. An assured Dravid at 3 makes such a difference to the overall feel of the Indian batting line-up. Laxman of course outplayed him; but Laxman’s was merely a continuation of form from last year. Dravid has clearly had to fight a lot of demons these past few months, and it looks like he might have won the battle.
All four minuses have to do with Indian performances. This isn’t to say that New Zealand doesn’t have minuses – their top order, for instance, is woeful. It is just that I don’t care about their minuses as I do about ours, so that is what I will focus on.
For me, four people disappointed in this game – Sehwag, Yuvraj, Karthik and Munaf. So let us consider each of them one by one.
Viru disappointed as both batsman and captain. His dismissals in both innings were unconscionable, and his leadership on the field was insipid. But I have to say that I’m not too worried about him. Sure, I hope he never repeats shots like that again. But he was just playing his natural game. Sure, it would be nice if he could have tailored his game to the needs of the situation. But we know he can do so, and indeed he did so majestically at Galle against Murali and Mendis just this past summer. As Sambit Bal wrote on cricinfo, I think his problem was that he just didn’t rate the New Zealand spinners highly enough; and cricket is a great leveler when you go in with that kind of arrogance. Hopefully he would have learnt something from this outing.
What perplexed me was how disappointing his captaincy was, given that on the one previous occasion when he captained India in a Test (Ahmedabad against Sri Lanka in 2005), he was quite brilliant. I have always admired Viru’s cricketing brain, and thought that he was also very good when in charge of the Delhi Daredevils in the IPL last year. But in this game, he just let things drift for large parts of the New Zealand innings; he seemed completely unwilling or unable to motivate the players in the field; and his field placements ranged from the extremely defensive (sweeper cover throughout the innings for just about everyone) to simply bizarre (the staggered slip cordon, which was bisected on more than one occasion by genuine edges). I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, given that he had to don the captain’s blazer on such short notice; but I have to say I was unpleasantly surprised. It is clear from this just how much this team feeds off Dhoni’s inspirational leadership.
Yuvraj might have redeemed himself somewhat with his second innings 50, but I still have worries about him. That knock came at the fag-end of a game, flat track, with the game virtually saved, and the New Zealanders knackered. For the rest of the game, however, Yuvraj was a disaster, with the bat and in the field, and the questions about his Test match abilities persist.
There are two problems with Yuvraj as a Test batsman. The first is technique, and the second temperament. That makes for a pretty comprehensive set of problems.
Certainly, Yuvi has talent. And on a flat track, he can make bowlers pay. But on tracks with a bit of nip in them, even run-of-the-mill swing bowlers would fancy their chances against him. The way he batted in the first innings reminded me of 1980s and 90s horror stories of Indian batsmen when they stepped abroad – Yuvi’s knock would have done Arun Lal or Vikram Rathore proud in terms of the utter lack of ability around off-stump. And of course, there is still the vulnerability against quality spin bowling. So if he doesn’t have the technique to play pace, and doesn’t have the technique to play spin, this presents a slight problem.
What makes up for it is that he is a confidence player, and when on song sheer confidence and ability sees him through. But the inverse also operates – when not on song, he goes to pieces in most dramatic fashion. We saw that when he sleepwalked through the tour of Australia last year – where again, it wasn’t just that he batted poorly, he also fielded like a zombie. And much of this game was the same. Good Test players are those who can battle through even when they are not on top of their game; and indeed, someone like Gambhir looked anything but fluent at the start of his second innings, but just stuck in there. I don’t think Yuvraj has the capacity, or the mental strength, to battle through tough situations like that, when he is not already in the zone.
He has probably done enough to retain his place in the side for the final Test; and indeed, he did play a couple of crucial knocks against England. And the fact that he is such a brilliant one-day player means that he will always remain in the picture for Test selection. It is probably also fair to give him a proper run, however defined, at the no. 6 spot, given that it is only after Ganguly’s retirement that this spot for him has had any look of permanence to it.
But on the other hand, if one looks dispassionately and in the long term, is Yuvi ever going to be an all-condition Test batsman? Is he really as good, technically, as either Badrinath or Rohit Sharma, who are both being kept out of the Test side on his account, and who have not been given half the chances he has? Is he really even as good as Dinesh Karthik, who has shown his ability to succeed as a batsman – in Tests, as an opener, in England – given that Yuvraj has not really succeeded in any position in Tests outside the sub-continent? Sure, he should be given a fair run – but of all the people in contention for that no. 6 spot, is he the most deserving of that fair run?
Karthik of course had a miserable game here, in front of and behind the stumps, to follow the two miserable games he had in Sri Lanka. But I am more sympathetic to him than I am to Yuvi.
First of all, I think he is in an unenviable position, because as long as he is picked in the side as second keeper, he is destined to carry the drinks unless Dhoni is injured. This means he is always in a no-win situation when he does play, and usually (as in this Test), he gets to play at short notice. Don’t get me wrong, I think DK is a pretty ordinary keeper – certainly Dhoni is a far better keeper than he is. But there aren’t that many good keepers doing the rounds in India (Parthiv Patel, in my mind, is far worse behind the stumps than DK is). Bengal’s Wriddhiman Saha might be someone to consider down the road. But the fact is, as long as the second keeper is being selected as Dhoni’s understudy, he has to be someone who can bat at no. 7 in Dhoni’s absence. And regardless of keeping skills, DK fits that bill better than anyone else.
Because the fact is, DK can bat, and he can bat well, and with spunk. He can stonewall if he needs to, and he can improvise and get quick runs if he needs to. And he has shown that, not just in domestic cricket (where he has come off a sensational year), but in international cricket. Let us not forget, that as makeshift opener, he was India’s top run-scorer in the 2007 Test series in England. Even regular openers often don’t manage that. Top run-scorer. In England. This is a non-trivial achievement. Do you think Yuvraj will ever be top-scorer in a series in England, at no. 6, let alone as opener? I don’t.
In other words, I think DK has to stay in the mix, because I think there is real talent there, and real temperament. But his place in the side has to be understood not as reserve keeper, but as reserve batsman. He is one of the best batsmen in Indian cricket today; he is every bit as deserving of a spot, as a batsman, as other aspirants like Badri and Rohit and, indeed, Yuvraj; and he has to be allowed to think of himself as someone who is legitimately in the running for that no. 6 spot. If he is taken along simply as Dhoni’s understudy, then he will be constantly put into these desperate, no-win positions that we have seen him in over the last few months. If it is made clear to him that he and Yuvraj are fighting for a middle-order spot, with his keeping abilities being a bonus, then I think that will give him enormous self-confidence, while keeping Yuvi on his toes. Certainly, if you asked me my honest opinion of who the better long-term Test batting prospect is of the two, then I would pick DK ahead of Yuvi – simply because he has proved, in spite of never having as much security as Yuvi, that he can do the job at the highest level in foreign conditions. Yuvi has not proved that yet.
But if there is a case for keeping Yuvi in the 11 for Wellington, then I see none for retaining Munaf Patel, the fourth failure of the game. That third seamer’s spot is the one that is still up for grabs. In Hamilton, Munaf did a good job, and suggested he might be the answer, at least for the time being. But in Napier, he was miserable.
This suggests two things, and I think both are true in Munaf’s case. The first is that he is an on-again, off-again cricketer. When he is good, he can be very good, but it is impossible to tell which side of the bed he will get out of on any given day. In that sense, while Yuvraj may or may not be the perfect successor to Ganguly, Munaf is most certainly the perfect successor to Ajit Agarkar (except that, unlike Agarkar, Munaf can neither bat nor field). The second is that he is good when conditions suit him, and terrible when they don’t. This pitch was a graveyard for fast bowlers, true – but all the other seamers on view on both sides, even someone with as limited talent as James Franklin, kept trying. To me, it seemed like Munaf just threw in the towel. A third seamer needs to be someone who can hold his own in all conditions; he may never win a game for the team, but he should never be a liability. I think, Munaf, too often in his short career, and especially in Tests, has proven to be a liability. I therefore would definitely replace him with Balaji for Wellington. Balaji can be a real threat if conditions favor him, but he can also bowl tightly and give it a 100% if we are presented with another belter.
So I think the two worries for India continue to be the no. 6 batsman and the third seamer. But I still think that it is a tall order for New Zealand to level the series, because, unless a real green-top is prepared, I just don’t see them as having the bowling attack to pick 20 wickets. Indeed, it could be argued that NZ has the weakest bowling attack of the eight major Test teams. (South Africa’s pace trio is scary good; India and Sri Lanka have genuine variety and versatility; Australia is looking good again now that Johnson and Siddle are hitting their straps; Pakistan, if and when they ever get to play, have two quality seamers in Gul and Tanvir; England has Flintoff, who is still one of the best fast bowlers in world cricket, and others who on their day turn up for work and look briefly threatening; and the West Indies have the genuine pace of Fidel Edwards. Vettori is a good bowler, but far better suited for the one-day game, and certainly no Shane Warne). This is why it is such a travesty that the second best bowler they have ever produced, Shane Bond, is fit as a fiddle, but cannot play because of the stupid and patently unjust ban on account of ICL participation. Bond in the side would have provided a real test of Indian mettle; and again, in his absence, it is cricket that is the loser, and administrative malice and pettiness that is the cause. Why, I wonder, did NZC tow BCCI’s line on this one?
Onward, then, to Wellington. Let us hope it turns out to be a cricket match, and not just net practice for the batsmen.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
India team for NZ ODIs, plus first thoughts on IPL09
So if there is one thing that this meaningless ODI series in Sri Lanka has taught us, it is the redundancy of Sachin Tendulkar in the shorter format of the game. One certainly feels for Sachin – he did, after all, get three horrendous decisions before being “rested” for the rest of the series. But the point is, we did just fine even with his failures. But his presence in the side for the first half of the series meant that we missed a chance to give Rohit Sharma a proper run, or to build our bench strength by taking along the likes of the hapless Badrinath.
So, as I sit down to pick my team to New Zealand for the ODIs there, the first name I strike off the list is Sachin’s. And this is for the same reasons I mentioned in my previous post: unless one is certain that he is integral to our World Cup 2011 plans, and will be at his best then at age 38, playing him now in inconsequential games just blocks up the pipeline, and prevents the important development of other young talent. A proper series in New Zealand will give Rohit a wealth of valuable experience – they are a more than useful one-day side (possibly as good or better than Sri Lanka), and these will be new conditions for him. Why not give him a proper run of five games there?
The rest of the batting order pretty much selects itself. Gambhir showed how devastating he can be at the top of the order once Sachin was rested, and that is where he should be batting. Yuvraj’s form has been phenomenal, and he has now won two man of the series awards in a row. It is hard to recognize in him now the forlorn figure in Australia at this time a year ago. So he should be getting as many overs as possible to bat. Raina continues to impress in his second coming, and looks very comfortable now in the one-day middle order, with his electric fielding adding immense value to the side. Dhoni remains the fulcrum of the side, both as batsman and captain. And young Yusuf Pathan has played some thumping knocks down the order, all the while developing his nagging off-spin. Playing in New Zealand conditions will be valuable new experience for him also, and at this point he completely looks the part as an India player to me. The only person with something really to prove amongst the batsmen is Rohit, and I really feel he deserves a proper run now to prove it.
The bowling is a little trickier, but not much. Zaheer and Ishant are certainties, while Praveen Kumar showed in Sri Lanka just how stupid it was to leave him out of the one-day scheme of things even briefly. All three of them will enjoy conditions in New Zealand, and PK’s wicket-to-wicket swing, I think, will be particularly useful there.
Pragyan Ojha was also a revelation in Sri Lanka, making me eat my many uncharitable words about him. However, I’m not sure that playing two spinners really makes sense in New Zealand, especially since all our part timers are spinners as well. Hence, I would play Irfan Pathan ahead of Ojha in the 11. It is true that Irfan has looked a bit iffy in Sri Lanka, but I still back his natural talent. His swing bowling can be very effective in New Zealand, and his lower order batting skills will be useful to fall back on against a team whose bowling is its strong suit. Irfan’s critics are ready to come out at the drop of a hat, but let us remember that just a year ago, he was Man of the Match in our Test win at Perth, and followed that up by leading Punjab’s attack most effectively in the IPL. I am convinced there is a quality cricketer waiting to make his mark there. In any case, his likely replacement would be Munaf Patel, who hardly has the temperament of a Glenn McGrath, whose batting skills are woeful in comparison to Irfan’s, and who will be coming off injury. So why not give Irfan a proper chance, instead of just playing him in the odd dead rubber here or there?
This only leaves the question of the bench. I think, in Sachin’s absence, that Badri has to be brought into the picture, and there are enough posts in these pages to suggest why I think he is so good. Raina and Rohit are ahead of him in the ODI stakes in the moment, but in Rohit’s case at least, just about. He needs to be part of the picture. I would also, without hesitation, retain Ravindra Jadeja. He has looked the part as a lower-order batsman ever since the IPL, and his half-century on debut in Sri Lanka was a most impressive affair. But Shane Warne didn’t use him as a bowler, and in the interim he has been one of the most successful bowlers in the Ranji Trophy this year. There is real all-round potential here. One of India’s glaring weaknesses of late has been the absence of quality all-rounders, which really hurts the balance of the side in one-day games. But now, we have Irfan, Yusuf and Jadeja all in the running – none of them finished products, but all capable of playing a role in 2011. To me, that is a very exciting development.
For the reserve fast bowler, I will bring back Munaf Patel, who should be fit. Munaf’s one outing in Sri Lanka was disappointing, and I for one am delighted that Laxmipaty Balaji is back in the fray, since he is one of my favorite cricketers. But Balaji’s own performance was nothing to write home about in the one chance he got (his figures of 5-0-32-0 were identical to Munaf’s in the first ODI). And more importantly, Balaji has for some reason never thrived in one-dayers. This is odd, given that he is basically a line and length bowler. But while he has always looked threatening and taken wickets in 4- and 5-day games, he has tended to be expensive and ineffective in one-dayers. When it comes to selecting the side for Tests, I would without hesitation put Balaji ahead of Munaf; just as I would likely put R.P. Singh in ahead of Irfan. But for the one-dayers, I would look at Munaf’s strong performances over the past six months and retain him.
I would give the last spot to Pragyan Ojha. I would do so even if Harbhajan is fit. Bhajji has probably done enough in terms of sheer weight of wickets to be India’s number 1 Test spinner. But I still don’t think that he has necessarily been more impressive, or looked more threatening, than other spinners who are fighting for a place in the side, like Mishra or Piyush Chawla or more recently Ojha. Ojha will learn and develop as a bowler by getting a chance in New Zealand, where conditions won’t help him as much as in Sri Lanka. He will also be helped by watching and playing against Daniel Vettori, definitely the best left-arm spinner in the game today. I’d bring Bhaj back in for the Tests, but given the glimpses of his ability that he’s shown in Sri Lanka, Ojha deserves a little more rope.
That means that my team is:
Gautam Gambhir
Virendra Sehwag (V)
Yuvraj Singh
Suresh Raina
Mahendra Dhoni © (W)
Rohit Sharma
Yusuf Pathan
Irfan Pathan
Praveen Kumar
Zaheer Khan
Ishant Sharma
Reserves:
Subramaniam Badrinath
Ravindra Jadeja
Munaf Patel
Pragyan Ojha
This means a top 5 that packs a real bunch; and a bottom 3 who will be a real threat against New Zealand’s fragile top order. Numbers 6, 7 and 8 are still works in progress – but if they are given proper encouragement, and start fulfilling their potential, then we really have a crackerjack core of a team for the next World Cup, because there is enormous talent in Rohit, Yusuf and Irfan (and their back-ups, Badri, Jadeja and Munaf).
A little IPL parenthesis. The auction has thrown up some interesting choices. Bangalore has expectedly made the big play by signing on Pietersen, but to me it is Chennai, Delhi and Mumbai that really look formidable. Chennai’s first-string foreign players include Hayden, Hussey, Flintoff, Albie Morkel, Ntini and Murali; given last year’s performances, Murali’s place might be the most vulnerable of this lot. That is really saying something, and that’s even without looking at a virtual India middle-order of Raina, Dhoni and Badri. Morkel might be the least known of the lot, but he is a real impact player in this format, and one of the few South Africans who came good last year. The South Africans will also be available for the duration of the tournament, so Morkel has a good chance of being this year’s Shane Watson.
Delhi’s middle order was weak last time, but I think it will be stronger this time. They have given up the consistent Shikhar Dhawan, but have the talented Australian David Warner. A top 3 of Gambhir, Sehwag and Warner is scary good, and for the no. 4 spot, they can choose between three extremely talented players in A.B. de Villiers, Tillakaratne Dilshan and Owais Shah. De Villiers disappointed last year, but there is such talent there, and even when he’s not making runs he’s worth 20 in the field even over 20 overs. This is backed up by the miserly duo of Glenn McGrath and Daniel Vettori, the latter, this time, available for the duration of the tournament. So you have some of the hardest hitters in the tournament, and a couple of the hardest bowlers to hit. The all-round skills of Fervez Maharoof and Rajat Bhatia don’t match up to those of Morkel and Flintoff; but in terms of specialists, Delhi is as good or better than anyone in the mix. And they have two quality spinners in Vettori and Mishra, which (if Murali doesn’t play) is two more than Chennai. Spinners played a huge role last year, and I think that teams with versatile spin attacks will have an advantage.
Mumbai, meanwhile, look very balanced, and J.P. Duminy in the middle order makes for a very good team at 4, 5 and 6 (Duminy, Bravo and Nayar). There is Sachin and Sanath at the top, and the no. 3 spot will be fought between the talented youngsters Dhawan and Ajinkya Rahane. Dhawan was outstanding for Delhi last year, but has had a quiet domestic season since. Rahane didn’t get much of a chance last year, but has been colossal for Mumbai, and should be at the periphery of the national selectors’ vision. Zaheer’s signing from Bangalore will help their bowling, and he will be partnered by either Lasith Malinga or Jerome Taylor, both potential match-winners, and supported by Dhawal Kulkarni, who after a sensational debut year in the Ranji Trophy must surely be knocking at doors.
Rajasthan will certainly be without the services of their two heroes Watson and Sohail Tanvir, and probably without the services of the third, Graeme Smith. This is a team with enormous self-belief, but those three will be hard to replace. Morne Morkel for Tanvir is probably the safest switch; Tyron Henderson will have big shoes to fill as he takes over Watson’s role; but somehow, I can’t see Justin Langer having the same impact as Smith at the top of the order. Had I been bidding, I would personally have gone after Brad Haddin here – Mahesh Rawat was the one weak spot in the Rajasthan side, looking ordinary behind the stumps and doing nothing whatsoever with the bat. Haddin would have provided a fine wicket-keeping option, while providing a more aggressive opening option than Langer will. Given the strength of their opposition, a repeat performance for the Royals seems unlikely, but who can put anything past Warne?
I certainly see Mumbai as semi-finalists this time, and the team that seems most in danger is Punjab. They have talent, but too much of it is fragile. Three of their star players, Sangakkara, Jayawardene, and Lee, have been going through patches ranging from the mediocre to the horrible; other key players such as Sreesanth and Irfan are, well, hardly predictable. And it is going to take a lot for Shaun Marsh to match the extremely high bar he set himself last year. There may be far fewer Preity Zinta hugs on offer this time round.
The dangerous floaters for me are Kolkata. They spent a ridiculous amount of money to make one acquisition, Mortaza, who may not even make their starting XI. But they have Brendon McCullum for the duration; Chris Gayle, who missed the last edition, for the first half; and the genius of Ajantha Mendis, who wasn’t unveiled at all the last time. Between Mendis, Gayle and Murali Kartik, they have the most versatile and varied spin attack in the competition. And their middle order could be much more stable this time round if Cheteshwar Pujara is given a proper run.
That leaves Deccan and Bangalore. Deccan turned in a bizarrely poor show at the auction. Given how weak they were last year, I really thought they would attempt to rectify the situation with some clever choices. Their seam attack is particularly weak, led as it is by R.P. Singh, whose inconsistency over the past year hardly inspires confidence. Considering that, I am surprised that Fidel Edwards has been selected as their acquisition. He can get wickets, but what Deccan really needs is someone they can rely on. Considering this, it boggles my mind that Stuart Clark was passed up. He was one of the three bowlers of the tournament in the T20 World Cup (along with R.P. and Umar Gul), and a team like Deccan, more than any other, could really have done with his services. He also has an excellent rapport with Gilchrist, which makes his non-inclusion even more baffling. So Deccan now depends on a captain who is retired from competitive cricket; Edwards, who is inconsistent; and the erratic and troubled genius of Andrew Symonds. Looks like what they can most legitimately aspire to is to avoid the wooden spoon again. If I were them, I would have at least gone for Bangladesh’s Shakib al Hasan – a foreign quartet of Gilchrist, Symonds, Hasan and Clark would have looked far better than anything Deccan will be able to put on the field this year. I would at least sign on the talented young UP all-rounder Bhuvaneshwar Kumar, who was most impressive with bat and ball in the Ranji Trophy this year, and who is someone who could have an impact in this format.
But even Deccan’s idiocy pales compared to Bangalore’s. Sure, the KP signing will give them some strength, and a lot of attention. But they had a depleted bowling attack last year, and giving Zak away is hardly going to help that. Nathan Bracken, if fit, might make up for that. (I would also consider drafting in Vidharba’s young Umesh Yadav. He is quick – very quick – and had Dravid in all sorts of trouble in the Duleep Trophy. He will enjoy bowling at the Chinnaswamy, which is amongst the more pace-friendly of the IPL venues, and will be far more threatening than the likes of Vinay Kumar or B. Akhil). But there is no spin worth its name, especially if Kumble decides against playing this year.
What I cannot stomach, however, is the public speculation about Dravid’s continuation as captain. True, Dravid isn’t a great captain, and certainly didn’t inspire his charges last year. And if KP was available for the duration of the tournament, it would be intriguing to hand over the reins to him and see what happens. But for three weeks? And then to be replaced by Mark Boucher? Boucher was one of the colossal flops for Bangalore last year. Dravid, on the other hand (as people like to forget), made nearly 400 runs in that tournament, making him virtually the only Bangalore player to have performed with any level of credibility.
What is really specious is the argument given by Vijay Mallya. Apparently, since Shane Warne was spurned as Australia captain, he came in to lead Rajasthan with a point to prove – hence, Mallya’s thinking (if what passes through that brain can be called thought) is that KP, spurned by England, will come to Bangalore bristling with leadership points to prove.
What this conveniently misses out is that Warne only took over the team on the condition that he had total control over it from the beginning. He wasn’t just a spurned captain – he was also coach, manager, confidant, in charge of appointing his own assistants and with a group of young enthusiastic charges under his care. It was also his only assignment – he wasn’t thinking of an impending Ashes assignment six weeks away. And he didn’t have as astronomical price tag that he had to justify every time he took the field. KP, on the other hand, will have to negotiate Ray Jennings as coach, who is such a hard-ass that even the South Africans rebelled against him and he had to be replaced by Mickey Arthur. And will have to negotiate the publicly idiotic blather of Mallya, who will expect instant results and show no patience with anything resembling process. Far from having a group of enthusiastic young charges that he gets to mold from the beginning, he will be confronted by a team of big egos who have gotten into the losing habit, trying to accept someone who is coming in from the outside to put in a three week cameo experience as leader. He will have the Ashes on his mind, and will probably be dealing with media speculation about whether he is worth his price, whether his true commitments are to England or to his IPL contract, and so on. And KP’s results while captaining England have been distinctly mediocre.
The point here is not whether KP is a better captain or Dravid. The point here is that good teams are built, and there are processes put in place. The idea that you can pull a captain out of a hat and he will magically transform the team’s fortunes, while all the while you are speculating on strategies and successes and failures in the media, goes against not just cricketing sense, but against any sense of successful organization or institution building. The pick-a-captain-and-hope-until-his-first-failure approach is what has gotten Pakistan cricket into the mess it is in. The public media speculation is what made Greg Chappell such a disastrous coach for his players, who could no longer continue to trust him. Mallya beautifully combines both these failed formulae. Indeed, the three most impressive teams in the first edition – Rajasthan, Chennai and Delhi – were three teams whose owners and management let their cricketers make the headlines.
There may be odd individual performances that helps Bangalore avoid the wooden spoon, or perhaps even lift them up from 7th to 6th. But in the long term, something can only come of this franchise when Mallya tires of it and sells it to someone who is actually interested in developing a cricket team rather than playing with his latest toy.
When that happens, I have an idea. The Pakistanis should appoint Mallya to head the PCB. The current administrators of Pakistan cricket have worked diligently over the past decade to turn their team from a bunch of world-beaters to a bunch of also-rans. But even the Ijaz Butts of the world will meet their match in Mallya. By the time he’s done with them, Pakistan will be cannon-fodder for Bangladesh.
So, my extremely premature IPL predictions:
Winners: Chennai or Delhi
Finals: Chennai v. Delhi
Semi-finalists: Mumbai and Rajasthan / Kolkata
5th: Kolkata / Rajasthan
6th: Punjab
Wooden spoon: Deccan / Bangalore
Player of the series: Albie Morkel
Batsman of the series: Gautam Gambhir / Virendra Sehwag / David Warner
Bowler of the series: Daniel Vettori / Ajantha Mendis
And a p.s: 51!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 51!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How sweet is that?!?!?!
So, as I sit down to pick my team to New Zealand for the ODIs there, the first name I strike off the list is Sachin’s. And this is for the same reasons I mentioned in my previous post: unless one is certain that he is integral to our World Cup 2011 plans, and will be at his best then at age 38, playing him now in inconsequential games just blocks up the pipeline, and prevents the important development of other young talent. A proper series in New Zealand will give Rohit a wealth of valuable experience – they are a more than useful one-day side (possibly as good or better than Sri Lanka), and these will be new conditions for him. Why not give him a proper run of five games there?
The rest of the batting order pretty much selects itself. Gambhir showed how devastating he can be at the top of the order once Sachin was rested, and that is where he should be batting. Yuvraj’s form has been phenomenal, and he has now won two man of the series awards in a row. It is hard to recognize in him now the forlorn figure in Australia at this time a year ago. So he should be getting as many overs as possible to bat. Raina continues to impress in his second coming, and looks very comfortable now in the one-day middle order, with his electric fielding adding immense value to the side. Dhoni remains the fulcrum of the side, both as batsman and captain. And young Yusuf Pathan has played some thumping knocks down the order, all the while developing his nagging off-spin. Playing in New Zealand conditions will be valuable new experience for him also, and at this point he completely looks the part as an India player to me. The only person with something really to prove amongst the batsmen is Rohit, and I really feel he deserves a proper run now to prove it.
The bowling is a little trickier, but not much. Zaheer and Ishant are certainties, while Praveen Kumar showed in Sri Lanka just how stupid it was to leave him out of the one-day scheme of things even briefly. All three of them will enjoy conditions in New Zealand, and PK’s wicket-to-wicket swing, I think, will be particularly useful there.
Pragyan Ojha was also a revelation in Sri Lanka, making me eat my many uncharitable words about him. However, I’m not sure that playing two spinners really makes sense in New Zealand, especially since all our part timers are spinners as well. Hence, I would play Irfan Pathan ahead of Ojha in the 11. It is true that Irfan has looked a bit iffy in Sri Lanka, but I still back his natural talent. His swing bowling can be very effective in New Zealand, and his lower order batting skills will be useful to fall back on against a team whose bowling is its strong suit. Irfan’s critics are ready to come out at the drop of a hat, but let us remember that just a year ago, he was Man of the Match in our Test win at Perth, and followed that up by leading Punjab’s attack most effectively in the IPL. I am convinced there is a quality cricketer waiting to make his mark there. In any case, his likely replacement would be Munaf Patel, who hardly has the temperament of a Glenn McGrath, whose batting skills are woeful in comparison to Irfan’s, and who will be coming off injury. So why not give Irfan a proper chance, instead of just playing him in the odd dead rubber here or there?
This only leaves the question of the bench. I think, in Sachin’s absence, that Badri has to be brought into the picture, and there are enough posts in these pages to suggest why I think he is so good. Raina and Rohit are ahead of him in the ODI stakes in the moment, but in Rohit’s case at least, just about. He needs to be part of the picture. I would also, without hesitation, retain Ravindra Jadeja. He has looked the part as a lower-order batsman ever since the IPL, and his half-century on debut in Sri Lanka was a most impressive affair. But Shane Warne didn’t use him as a bowler, and in the interim he has been one of the most successful bowlers in the Ranji Trophy this year. There is real all-round potential here. One of India’s glaring weaknesses of late has been the absence of quality all-rounders, which really hurts the balance of the side in one-day games. But now, we have Irfan, Yusuf and Jadeja all in the running – none of them finished products, but all capable of playing a role in 2011. To me, that is a very exciting development.
For the reserve fast bowler, I will bring back Munaf Patel, who should be fit. Munaf’s one outing in Sri Lanka was disappointing, and I for one am delighted that Laxmipaty Balaji is back in the fray, since he is one of my favorite cricketers. But Balaji’s own performance was nothing to write home about in the one chance he got (his figures of 5-0-32-0 were identical to Munaf’s in the first ODI). And more importantly, Balaji has for some reason never thrived in one-dayers. This is odd, given that he is basically a line and length bowler. But while he has always looked threatening and taken wickets in 4- and 5-day games, he has tended to be expensive and ineffective in one-dayers. When it comes to selecting the side for Tests, I would without hesitation put Balaji ahead of Munaf; just as I would likely put R.P. Singh in ahead of Irfan. But for the one-dayers, I would look at Munaf’s strong performances over the past six months and retain him.
I would give the last spot to Pragyan Ojha. I would do so even if Harbhajan is fit. Bhajji has probably done enough in terms of sheer weight of wickets to be India’s number 1 Test spinner. But I still don’t think that he has necessarily been more impressive, or looked more threatening, than other spinners who are fighting for a place in the side, like Mishra or Piyush Chawla or more recently Ojha. Ojha will learn and develop as a bowler by getting a chance in New Zealand, where conditions won’t help him as much as in Sri Lanka. He will also be helped by watching and playing against Daniel Vettori, definitely the best left-arm spinner in the game today. I’d bring Bhaj back in for the Tests, but given the glimpses of his ability that he’s shown in Sri Lanka, Ojha deserves a little more rope.
That means that my team is:
Gautam Gambhir
Virendra Sehwag (V)
Yuvraj Singh
Suresh Raina
Mahendra Dhoni © (W)
Rohit Sharma
Yusuf Pathan
Irfan Pathan
Praveen Kumar
Zaheer Khan
Ishant Sharma
Reserves:
Subramaniam Badrinath
Ravindra Jadeja
Munaf Patel
Pragyan Ojha
This means a top 5 that packs a real bunch; and a bottom 3 who will be a real threat against New Zealand’s fragile top order. Numbers 6, 7 and 8 are still works in progress – but if they are given proper encouragement, and start fulfilling their potential, then we really have a crackerjack core of a team for the next World Cup, because there is enormous talent in Rohit, Yusuf and Irfan (and their back-ups, Badri, Jadeja and Munaf).
A little IPL parenthesis. The auction has thrown up some interesting choices. Bangalore has expectedly made the big play by signing on Pietersen, but to me it is Chennai, Delhi and Mumbai that really look formidable. Chennai’s first-string foreign players include Hayden, Hussey, Flintoff, Albie Morkel, Ntini and Murali; given last year’s performances, Murali’s place might be the most vulnerable of this lot. That is really saying something, and that’s even without looking at a virtual India middle-order of Raina, Dhoni and Badri. Morkel might be the least known of the lot, but he is a real impact player in this format, and one of the few South Africans who came good last year. The South Africans will also be available for the duration of the tournament, so Morkel has a good chance of being this year’s Shane Watson.
Delhi’s middle order was weak last time, but I think it will be stronger this time. They have given up the consistent Shikhar Dhawan, but have the talented Australian David Warner. A top 3 of Gambhir, Sehwag and Warner is scary good, and for the no. 4 spot, they can choose between three extremely talented players in A.B. de Villiers, Tillakaratne Dilshan and Owais Shah. De Villiers disappointed last year, but there is such talent there, and even when he’s not making runs he’s worth 20 in the field even over 20 overs. This is backed up by the miserly duo of Glenn McGrath and Daniel Vettori, the latter, this time, available for the duration of the tournament. So you have some of the hardest hitters in the tournament, and a couple of the hardest bowlers to hit. The all-round skills of Fervez Maharoof and Rajat Bhatia don’t match up to those of Morkel and Flintoff; but in terms of specialists, Delhi is as good or better than anyone in the mix. And they have two quality spinners in Vettori and Mishra, which (if Murali doesn’t play) is two more than Chennai. Spinners played a huge role last year, and I think that teams with versatile spin attacks will have an advantage.
Mumbai, meanwhile, look very balanced, and J.P. Duminy in the middle order makes for a very good team at 4, 5 and 6 (Duminy, Bravo and Nayar). There is Sachin and Sanath at the top, and the no. 3 spot will be fought between the talented youngsters Dhawan and Ajinkya Rahane. Dhawan was outstanding for Delhi last year, but has had a quiet domestic season since. Rahane didn’t get much of a chance last year, but has been colossal for Mumbai, and should be at the periphery of the national selectors’ vision. Zaheer’s signing from Bangalore will help their bowling, and he will be partnered by either Lasith Malinga or Jerome Taylor, both potential match-winners, and supported by Dhawal Kulkarni, who after a sensational debut year in the Ranji Trophy must surely be knocking at doors.
Rajasthan will certainly be without the services of their two heroes Watson and Sohail Tanvir, and probably without the services of the third, Graeme Smith. This is a team with enormous self-belief, but those three will be hard to replace. Morne Morkel for Tanvir is probably the safest switch; Tyron Henderson will have big shoes to fill as he takes over Watson’s role; but somehow, I can’t see Justin Langer having the same impact as Smith at the top of the order. Had I been bidding, I would personally have gone after Brad Haddin here – Mahesh Rawat was the one weak spot in the Rajasthan side, looking ordinary behind the stumps and doing nothing whatsoever with the bat. Haddin would have provided a fine wicket-keeping option, while providing a more aggressive opening option than Langer will. Given the strength of their opposition, a repeat performance for the Royals seems unlikely, but who can put anything past Warne?
I certainly see Mumbai as semi-finalists this time, and the team that seems most in danger is Punjab. They have talent, but too much of it is fragile. Three of their star players, Sangakkara, Jayawardene, and Lee, have been going through patches ranging from the mediocre to the horrible; other key players such as Sreesanth and Irfan are, well, hardly predictable. And it is going to take a lot for Shaun Marsh to match the extremely high bar he set himself last year. There may be far fewer Preity Zinta hugs on offer this time round.
The dangerous floaters for me are Kolkata. They spent a ridiculous amount of money to make one acquisition, Mortaza, who may not even make their starting XI. But they have Brendon McCullum for the duration; Chris Gayle, who missed the last edition, for the first half; and the genius of Ajantha Mendis, who wasn’t unveiled at all the last time. Between Mendis, Gayle and Murali Kartik, they have the most versatile and varied spin attack in the competition. And their middle order could be much more stable this time round if Cheteshwar Pujara is given a proper run.
That leaves Deccan and Bangalore. Deccan turned in a bizarrely poor show at the auction. Given how weak they were last year, I really thought they would attempt to rectify the situation with some clever choices. Their seam attack is particularly weak, led as it is by R.P. Singh, whose inconsistency over the past year hardly inspires confidence. Considering that, I am surprised that Fidel Edwards has been selected as their acquisition. He can get wickets, but what Deccan really needs is someone they can rely on. Considering this, it boggles my mind that Stuart Clark was passed up. He was one of the three bowlers of the tournament in the T20 World Cup (along with R.P. and Umar Gul), and a team like Deccan, more than any other, could really have done with his services. He also has an excellent rapport with Gilchrist, which makes his non-inclusion even more baffling. So Deccan now depends on a captain who is retired from competitive cricket; Edwards, who is inconsistent; and the erratic and troubled genius of Andrew Symonds. Looks like what they can most legitimately aspire to is to avoid the wooden spoon again. If I were them, I would have at least gone for Bangladesh’s Shakib al Hasan – a foreign quartet of Gilchrist, Symonds, Hasan and Clark would have looked far better than anything Deccan will be able to put on the field this year. I would at least sign on the talented young UP all-rounder Bhuvaneshwar Kumar, who was most impressive with bat and ball in the Ranji Trophy this year, and who is someone who could have an impact in this format.
But even Deccan’s idiocy pales compared to Bangalore’s. Sure, the KP signing will give them some strength, and a lot of attention. But they had a depleted bowling attack last year, and giving Zak away is hardly going to help that. Nathan Bracken, if fit, might make up for that. (I would also consider drafting in Vidharba’s young Umesh Yadav. He is quick – very quick – and had Dravid in all sorts of trouble in the Duleep Trophy. He will enjoy bowling at the Chinnaswamy, which is amongst the more pace-friendly of the IPL venues, and will be far more threatening than the likes of Vinay Kumar or B. Akhil). But there is no spin worth its name, especially if Kumble decides against playing this year.
What I cannot stomach, however, is the public speculation about Dravid’s continuation as captain. True, Dravid isn’t a great captain, and certainly didn’t inspire his charges last year. And if KP was available for the duration of the tournament, it would be intriguing to hand over the reins to him and see what happens. But for three weeks? And then to be replaced by Mark Boucher? Boucher was one of the colossal flops for Bangalore last year. Dravid, on the other hand (as people like to forget), made nearly 400 runs in that tournament, making him virtually the only Bangalore player to have performed with any level of credibility.
What is really specious is the argument given by Vijay Mallya. Apparently, since Shane Warne was spurned as Australia captain, he came in to lead Rajasthan with a point to prove – hence, Mallya’s thinking (if what passes through that brain can be called thought) is that KP, spurned by England, will come to Bangalore bristling with leadership points to prove.
What this conveniently misses out is that Warne only took over the team on the condition that he had total control over it from the beginning. He wasn’t just a spurned captain – he was also coach, manager, confidant, in charge of appointing his own assistants and with a group of young enthusiastic charges under his care. It was also his only assignment – he wasn’t thinking of an impending Ashes assignment six weeks away. And he didn’t have as astronomical price tag that he had to justify every time he took the field. KP, on the other hand, will have to negotiate Ray Jennings as coach, who is such a hard-ass that even the South Africans rebelled against him and he had to be replaced by Mickey Arthur. And will have to negotiate the publicly idiotic blather of Mallya, who will expect instant results and show no patience with anything resembling process. Far from having a group of enthusiastic young charges that he gets to mold from the beginning, he will be confronted by a team of big egos who have gotten into the losing habit, trying to accept someone who is coming in from the outside to put in a three week cameo experience as leader. He will have the Ashes on his mind, and will probably be dealing with media speculation about whether he is worth his price, whether his true commitments are to England or to his IPL contract, and so on. And KP’s results while captaining England have been distinctly mediocre.
The point here is not whether KP is a better captain or Dravid. The point here is that good teams are built, and there are processes put in place. The idea that you can pull a captain out of a hat and he will magically transform the team’s fortunes, while all the while you are speculating on strategies and successes and failures in the media, goes against not just cricketing sense, but against any sense of successful organization or institution building. The pick-a-captain-and-hope-until-his-first-failure approach is what has gotten Pakistan cricket into the mess it is in. The public media speculation is what made Greg Chappell such a disastrous coach for his players, who could no longer continue to trust him. Mallya beautifully combines both these failed formulae. Indeed, the three most impressive teams in the first edition – Rajasthan, Chennai and Delhi – were three teams whose owners and management let their cricketers make the headlines.
There may be odd individual performances that helps Bangalore avoid the wooden spoon, or perhaps even lift them up from 7th to 6th. But in the long term, something can only come of this franchise when Mallya tires of it and sells it to someone who is actually interested in developing a cricket team rather than playing with his latest toy.
When that happens, I have an idea. The Pakistanis should appoint Mallya to head the PCB. The current administrators of Pakistan cricket have worked diligently over the past decade to turn their team from a bunch of world-beaters to a bunch of also-rans. But even the Ijaz Butts of the world will meet their match in Mallya. By the time he’s done with them, Pakistan will be cannon-fodder for Bangladesh.
So, my extremely premature IPL predictions:
Winners: Chennai or Delhi
Finals: Chennai v. Delhi
Semi-finalists: Mumbai and Rajasthan / Kolkata
5th: Kolkata / Rajasthan
6th: Punjab
Wooden spoon: Deccan / Bangalore
Player of the series: Albie Morkel
Batsman of the series: Gautam Gambhir / Virendra Sehwag / David Warner
Bowler of the series: Daniel Vettori / Ajantha Mendis
And a p.s: 51!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 51!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How sweet is that?!?!?!
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Indian team for SL ODIs
So, the BCCI just couldn’t resist slipping in a meaningless ODI series to disrupt a well-earned rest for the Indian cricket team. In a similar vein, therefore, I cannot resist sending out my team for it.
Basically, this one-day team is a reflection of the shape that I think the team needs to take this year, as we approach the half-way point towards the next World Cup. Much of the team looks settled, and all the tinkering has tended to be with the bench strength and around the edges. But now it’s time to start settling upon combinations that can work for us over the next two years, instead of continuing to tinker.
For me, that involves one major decision to start with, and that is going to be controversial. And that is to drop Tendulkar from the one-day side. Don’t get me wrong – I still think he is a great player, and would like to think that he has a couple of years of Test cricket left in him. But that is precisely why I think his one-day appearances need to be curtailed. However well he is playing, it is clear now that the body is weaker than the mind is, and Sachin has now had a relatively major injury crop up every year or two for the past few. I would much rather have Sachin fit to play a full Test schedule than throw him in for meaningless ODI series and risk further injury or wear-and-tear.
I think Sachin himself sees that – hence his decision to opt out of the early part of the England one-day series, for instance. And this brings me to the reason why leaving Sachin out of the ODI team is good not just for him, but for the team.
At this point, Sachin is more or less playing his own selector, picking and choosing which games to play and which not to. That’s fine as an acknowledgment to one of the game’s all-time greats, but not really good for the team. At this point, a Test middle order without Sachin would have a big hole in it, and it’s not entirely clear who will fill it. But a one-day line-up without Sachin doesn’t seem to miss him at all. Whether against England or in the earlier games in the summer that Sachin missed through injury, his absence really wasn’t felt at all, because the personnel already exist to make a quality top 6 even in his absence. Gambhir and Sehwag form as effective an opening partnership as Sachin and Sehwag did in their prime; Yuvraj and Dhoni are two of the most dangerous middle / lower-middle order batsmen in the one-day game; and Raina and Rohit, not Sachin, are the ones who are likely to be reaching the peak of their game come 2011. When Sachin plays, therefore, he has to be accommodated, regardless of how well he is playing. Gambhir has to drop down to 3 – where he is comfortable enough, but it’s still an odd thing to have to shuffle the player who has been your most reliable batsman to accommodate someone else’s position. And most importantly, someone else has to get the axe – someone else who is likely to be better served being properly groomed for the long-term rather than worrying about his place in the 11.
That someone, at this point, is Rohit Sharma. Rohit has played the odd sparkling knock in his ODI career so far; but over the past year, Raina has most certainly outplayed him. Yet, there is no doubting Rohit’s talent, not just as a one-day player, but also as a future Test player. Hence, this is the time to be really encouraging Rohit. If Sachin plays, then Rohit either gets dropped down the order to 6 or 7 to play as a finisher; or he is dropped from the 11 altogether, as happened towards the end of the England ODI series. The end of that series, when India was well on top, was the ideal time to give Rohit a chance higher up the order with less pressure. Instead, Sachin felt he wanted to play, and Rohit had to sit out.
For me, one of the agendas of the year has to be to take care of Rohit, and give him the opportunity to blossom. That means not just playing him, but giving him a fixed position in the line-up – at this point, he has been moved everywhere from 3 to 7. And I think that position needs to be at 3. Everyone knows Rohit can play lovely little cameos down the order. But he is too good a batsman to be left to just that role. For him to become a serious Test contender, he needs to get into the habit of making big 100s. Allowing him to play at 3, and giving him time as well as the challenge of negotiating that pivotal role, is the best way to do it. He may fail a few times, but I think he needs to be told that the spot is his, and that he will be given the opportunity to fail.
Sachin, in a sense, achieved whatever he needed to in his one-day career by guiding India to the VB Series win last year. At this point, he is simply indulging his desire to get a game in whenever he feels like it. He may feel like he has more one-day cricket left in him – but so did Ganguly, who was in fact batting with great consistency when he was dropped from the one-day side. I thought the selectors were being harsh with Ganguly at the time, but that move in fact allowed Gambhir to consolidate his place in the scheme of things, which, from a team perspective, was enormously beneficial – especially since Gambhir carried on the confidence he developed in the shorter form into his Test performances. At this point, some selectorial courage is required to make a similar decision with Sachin, so that Rohit gets the chance to shine.
My second controversial decision would be to bench Zaheer Khan. Unlike Sachin, I see Zak playing a central role in the 2011 World Cup. But he is now 30, and I do think his workload needs to be carefully managed. I would much rather have Zak fully fit for our Test engagements this year, where he is irreplaceable, than have him play ODIs all over the place. This is especially since we do have a pool of young fast bowlers coming through the ranks, and so this would provide some space to give them a chance as well. Ravi Shastri mentioned that physiologically, a fast bowler needs to be bowling as much as possible until he is 22, because that is when bowling more actually helps him develop the right muscles, and prevents injuries down the road. So with someone like Ishant Sharma, one is actually better off over-bowling him than under-bowling him. 22-26 then is the optimum age for a fast bowler’s fitness. After 26, too much bowling can actually be counter-productive, so that is when managing workload becomes extremely important. Hence, at this point, I would play Ishant whenever fit, but hold Zak back for the big ones.
So, with that as prelude, some of the elements of the Indian team to Sri Lanka start fitting into place. The top 6 is pretty straightforward: Gambhir and Sehwag to open, Rohit and Raina given a chance to prove themselves at 3 and 4; Yuvraj and Dhoni at 5 and 6. Subramaniam Badrinath is an obvious reserve batsman. For the second reserve batsman, however, I would drop Virat Kohli and go back to Robin Uthappa.
I do think Kohli has some potential, but to be honest, from what I have seen of him, he still seems very raw and has a long way to go as a batsman, even technically. Uthappa may not have made a great fist of things so far – but he is someone we have invested in for 2+ years now, and I think the key in cases like this is to try and realize that investment. After being dropped, Uthappa has gone back and made runs in domestic cricket, and was in fact the top scorer in the Challenger Trophy, which is meant, after all, to serve as a selection trial for the one-day squad. He certainly has talent, strokes, and an innate self-confidence, and is someone who in my opinion is worth nurturing.
There are a couple of things that I like about Uthappa as a one-day player. The first is that he is an ideal man to play the role that has been thrust upon Rohit, as a floater in the line-up. Uthappa is probably most effective as a finisher, but he can bat anywhere from 1 to 7, and has turned in useful performances at pretty much all these spots. This makes him an ideal person to be on the bench, since he can effectively cover for any of the batsmen in case of injury. The second thing that makes him attractive is his wicket-keeping abilities. He’s not a frontline keeper by any means; but he could provide the opportunity for Dhoni to rest, at least from his keeping roles. With Dhoni now captaining in all three forms of the game, I think that it is essential for him to have the option of not having to keep in every game. Neither DK nor Parthiv, on present form, warrant a place in the one-day 15. Hence, it’s worthwhile grooming Uthappa not just as a back-up batsman, but also as a back-up one-day keeper. His overall utility value to the team, therefore, makes him an obvious selection in my mind.
The no. 7 spot needs to go to an all-rounder, and I think the only two who are clearly good enough to play for India are the Pathan brothers. Yusuf is more of a batsman who can bowl a bit; but I think that if he works on his bowling, then he could be someone who could be relied upon as a support spinner. Certainly, he deserves a proper run as a batsman, especially in favorable conditions. Meanwhile, there is no question in my mind that in one-days, Irfan is a better bet than R.P. Singh simply because of his batting abilities. R.P. might be the better bowler, and certainly I would pick him ahead of Irfan for Tests. But R.P.’s own form over the past year has been ordinary at best, and on this form, I see no justification for him getting into the side ahead of Irfan, his friendship with Dhoni notwithstanding. In any case, we really need to decide what to do with Irfan. He has continued to blow hot and blow cold, but the talent there is immense. And there is a genuine all-rounder there. A Test spot might still be a question mark (though I would certainly keep him in the reckoning), but from my perspective having him be a part of the one-day scheme of things is a no-brainer.
If we are to have a real chance of winning the World Cup in 2011, we do need a genuine all-rounder at 7 – 7 batsmen and 4 bowlers isn’t going to cut it. At this point, I just don’t see too many all-rounders in the country beyond the Pathan brothers who are international class. I think that the third person to bring into the reckoning is young Ravindra Jadeja, who impressed greatly as a batsman in the IPL before turning out as the season’s highest wicket-taker in domestic cricket with his left-arm spin. But at the moment, Yusuf needs to be given a proper run before others are brought in and tried out. Jadeja could well have a future as an India player, but I wouldn’t select him just yet. In Sri Lanka, Yusuf would probably warrant a spot ahead of Irfan in the 11. But in New Zealand, conditions could well suit Irfan’s bowling and make him a very dangerous customer.
In terms of bowling, Harbhajan Singh as primary spinner is obvious, certainly in one-dayers. So too is Ishant, and in the absence of Zaheer, Munaf. For my third seamer, I would pick Praveen Kumar. In all the dust up about whether Irfan should be picked or R.P., I was amazed that PK was quietly dropped out of consideration towards the end of last year. In my opinion, he is one of the best ODI bowlers in the country today. He is tidy, consistent, keeps it on a line and length, swings it both ways, and is constantly aggressive and at the batsmen all the time. He has done well whenever he has been given the chance, and has already won a few games for India in his short career. His fitness has been remarkable – he has bowled many overs for UP over the past few years, without ever breaking down. For me, his dropping by the Srikkanth committee after they took over was one of the scandals of the year; but because PK is not a celebrity figure, it hardly got any play. In New Zealand, I think his wicket-to-wicket swing can be devastating. But even in Sri Lanka, I think a bowler like him who is constantly at the batsman can be very effective. The Lankans like to go after bowlers, and PK is not an easy bowler to go after. Regardless of conditions, he is a certainty in my book, not just in the 15 but in the 11.
That only leaves the reserve spinner to choose, and here in my mind is the second instance of poor treatment in recent times. From my perspective, there is no question that this spot should go to Piyush Chawla. The talent there is immense, as is the temperament, and whenever he has been given a chance, he has risen to the occasion – whether it was in England last year (after which he was promptly dropped), or against Australia in the VB series, or in the IPL (after which he was promptly ignored). His lower-order batting abilities mean that he would not only be a viable replacement for Bhajji, but also a viable substitute for PK if conditions favor a second spinner. How and why Pragyan Ojha can be preferred to him remains an utter mystery to me. From my perspective, Ojha’s was the most undeserving selection of 2008. I thought that this was Venkatapathy Raju’s nepotism towards a fellow Hyderabadi, so am perplexed that he has been kept in the picture by the Srikkanth committee as well. PC looks to me like a real long-term prospect, as someone who can push Amit Mishra for a Test spot as well. He should absolutely be part of the team as far as I am concerned.
Hence, my team for Sri Lanka:
Playing XI:
Gautam Gambhir
Virendra Sehwag (V)
Rohit Sharma
Suresh Raina
Yuvraj Singh
Mahendra Dhoni © (W)
Yusuf Pathan
Harbhajan Singh
Praveen Kumar
Ishant Sharma
Munaf Patel
Reserves:
Subramaniam Badrinath
Robin Uthappa
Irfan Pathan
Piyush Chawla
Basically, this one-day team is a reflection of the shape that I think the team needs to take this year, as we approach the half-way point towards the next World Cup. Much of the team looks settled, and all the tinkering has tended to be with the bench strength and around the edges. But now it’s time to start settling upon combinations that can work for us over the next two years, instead of continuing to tinker.
For me, that involves one major decision to start with, and that is going to be controversial. And that is to drop Tendulkar from the one-day side. Don’t get me wrong – I still think he is a great player, and would like to think that he has a couple of years of Test cricket left in him. But that is precisely why I think his one-day appearances need to be curtailed. However well he is playing, it is clear now that the body is weaker than the mind is, and Sachin has now had a relatively major injury crop up every year or two for the past few. I would much rather have Sachin fit to play a full Test schedule than throw him in for meaningless ODI series and risk further injury or wear-and-tear.
I think Sachin himself sees that – hence his decision to opt out of the early part of the England one-day series, for instance. And this brings me to the reason why leaving Sachin out of the ODI team is good not just for him, but for the team.
At this point, Sachin is more or less playing his own selector, picking and choosing which games to play and which not to. That’s fine as an acknowledgment to one of the game’s all-time greats, but not really good for the team. At this point, a Test middle order without Sachin would have a big hole in it, and it’s not entirely clear who will fill it. But a one-day line-up without Sachin doesn’t seem to miss him at all. Whether against England or in the earlier games in the summer that Sachin missed through injury, his absence really wasn’t felt at all, because the personnel already exist to make a quality top 6 even in his absence. Gambhir and Sehwag form as effective an opening partnership as Sachin and Sehwag did in their prime; Yuvraj and Dhoni are two of the most dangerous middle / lower-middle order batsmen in the one-day game; and Raina and Rohit, not Sachin, are the ones who are likely to be reaching the peak of their game come 2011. When Sachin plays, therefore, he has to be accommodated, regardless of how well he is playing. Gambhir has to drop down to 3 – where he is comfortable enough, but it’s still an odd thing to have to shuffle the player who has been your most reliable batsman to accommodate someone else’s position. And most importantly, someone else has to get the axe – someone else who is likely to be better served being properly groomed for the long-term rather than worrying about his place in the 11.
That someone, at this point, is Rohit Sharma. Rohit has played the odd sparkling knock in his ODI career so far; but over the past year, Raina has most certainly outplayed him. Yet, there is no doubting Rohit’s talent, not just as a one-day player, but also as a future Test player. Hence, this is the time to be really encouraging Rohit. If Sachin plays, then Rohit either gets dropped down the order to 6 or 7 to play as a finisher; or he is dropped from the 11 altogether, as happened towards the end of the England ODI series. The end of that series, when India was well on top, was the ideal time to give Rohit a chance higher up the order with less pressure. Instead, Sachin felt he wanted to play, and Rohit had to sit out.
For me, one of the agendas of the year has to be to take care of Rohit, and give him the opportunity to blossom. That means not just playing him, but giving him a fixed position in the line-up – at this point, he has been moved everywhere from 3 to 7. And I think that position needs to be at 3. Everyone knows Rohit can play lovely little cameos down the order. But he is too good a batsman to be left to just that role. For him to become a serious Test contender, he needs to get into the habit of making big 100s. Allowing him to play at 3, and giving him time as well as the challenge of negotiating that pivotal role, is the best way to do it. He may fail a few times, but I think he needs to be told that the spot is his, and that he will be given the opportunity to fail.
Sachin, in a sense, achieved whatever he needed to in his one-day career by guiding India to the VB Series win last year. At this point, he is simply indulging his desire to get a game in whenever he feels like it. He may feel like he has more one-day cricket left in him – but so did Ganguly, who was in fact batting with great consistency when he was dropped from the one-day side. I thought the selectors were being harsh with Ganguly at the time, but that move in fact allowed Gambhir to consolidate his place in the scheme of things, which, from a team perspective, was enormously beneficial – especially since Gambhir carried on the confidence he developed in the shorter form into his Test performances. At this point, some selectorial courage is required to make a similar decision with Sachin, so that Rohit gets the chance to shine.
My second controversial decision would be to bench Zaheer Khan. Unlike Sachin, I see Zak playing a central role in the 2011 World Cup. But he is now 30, and I do think his workload needs to be carefully managed. I would much rather have Zak fully fit for our Test engagements this year, where he is irreplaceable, than have him play ODIs all over the place. This is especially since we do have a pool of young fast bowlers coming through the ranks, and so this would provide some space to give them a chance as well. Ravi Shastri mentioned that physiologically, a fast bowler needs to be bowling as much as possible until he is 22, because that is when bowling more actually helps him develop the right muscles, and prevents injuries down the road. So with someone like Ishant Sharma, one is actually better off over-bowling him than under-bowling him. 22-26 then is the optimum age for a fast bowler’s fitness. After 26, too much bowling can actually be counter-productive, so that is when managing workload becomes extremely important. Hence, at this point, I would play Ishant whenever fit, but hold Zak back for the big ones.
So, with that as prelude, some of the elements of the Indian team to Sri Lanka start fitting into place. The top 6 is pretty straightforward: Gambhir and Sehwag to open, Rohit and Raina given a chance to prove themselves at 3 and 4; Yuvraj and Dhoni at 5 and 6. Subramaniam Badrinath is an obvious reserve batsman. For the second reserve batsman, however, I would drop Virat Kohli and go back to Robin Uthappa.
I do think Kohli has some potential, but to be honest, from what I have seen of him, he still seems very raw and has a long way to go as a batsman, even technically. Uthappa may not have made a great fist of things so far – but he is someone we have invested in for 2+ years now, and I think the key in cases like this is to try and realize that investment. After being dropped, Uthappa has gone back and made runs in domestic cricket, and was in fact the top scorer in the Challenger Trophy, which is meant, after all, to serve as a selection trial for the one-day squad. He certainly has talent, strokes, and an innate self-confidence, and is someone who in my opinion is worth nurturing.
There are a couple of things that I like about Uthappa as a one-day player. The first is that he is an ideal man to play the role that has been thrust upon Rohit, as a floater in the line-up. Uthappa is probably most effective as a finisher, but he can bat anywhere from 1 to 7, and has turned in useful performances at pretty much all these spots. This makes him an ideal person to be on the bench, since he can effectively cover for any of the batsmen in case of injury. The second thing that makes him attractive is his wicket-keeping abilities. He’s not a frontline keeper by any means; but he could provide the opportunity for Dhoni to rest, at least from his keeping roles. With Dhoni now captaining in all three forms of the game, I think that it is essential for him to have the option of not having to keep in every game. Neither DK nor Parthiv, on present form, warrant a place in the one-day 15. Hence, it’s worthwhile grooming Uthappa not just as a back-up batsman, but also as a back-up one-day keeper. His overall utility value to the team, therefore, makes him an obvious selection in my mind.
The no. 7 spot needs to go to an all-rounder, and I think the only two who are clearly good enough to play for India are the Pathan brothers. Yusuf is more of a batsman who can bowl a bit; but I think that if he works on his bowling, then he could be someone who could be relied upon as a support spinner. Certainly, he deserves a proper run as a batsman, especially in favorable conditions. Meanwhile, there is no question in my mind that in one-days, Irfan is a better bet than R.P. Singh simply because of his batting abilities. R.P. might be the better bowler, and certainly I would pick him ahead of Irfan for Tests. But R.P.’s own form over the past year has been ordinary at best, and on this form, I see no justification for him getting into the side ahead of Irfan, his friendship with Dhoni notwithstanding. In any case, we really need to decide what to do with Irfan. He has continued to blow hot and blow cold, but the talent there is immense. And there is a genuine all-rounder there. A Test spot might still be a question mark (though I would certainly keep him in the reckoning), but from my perspective having him be a part of the one-day scheme of things is a no-brainer.
If we are to have a real chance of winning the World Cup in 2011, we do need a genuine all-rounder at 7 – 7 batsmen and 4 bowlers isn’t going to cut it. At this point, I just don’t see too many all-rounders in the country beyond the Pathan brothers who are international class. I think that the third person to bring into the reckoning is young Ravindra Jadeja, who impressed greatly as a batsman in the IPL before turning out as the season’s highest wicket-taker in domestic cricket with his left-arm spin. But at the moment, Yusuf needs to be given a proper run before others are brought in and tried out. Jadeja could well have a future as an India player, but I wouldn’t select him just yet. In Sri Lanka, Yusuf would probably warrant a spot ahead of Irfan in the 11. But in New Zealand, conditions could well suit Irfan’s bowling and make him a very dangerous customer.
In terms of bowling, Harbhajan Singh as primary spinner is obvious, certainly in one-dayers. So too is Ishant, and in the absence of Zaheer, Munaf. For my third seamer, I would pick Praveen Kumar. In all the dust up about whether Irfan should be picked or R.P., I was amazed that PK was quietly dropped out of consideration towards the end of last year. In my opinion, he is one of the best ODI bowlers in the country today. He is tidy, consistent, keeps it on a line and length, swings it both ways, and is constantly aggressive and at the batsmen all the time. He has done well whenever he has been given the chance, and has already won a few games for India in his short career. His fitness has been remarkable – he has bowled many overs for UP over the past few years, without ever breaking down. For me, his dropping by the Srikkanth committee after they took over was one of the scandals of the year; but because PK is not a celebrity figure, it hardly got any play. In New Zealand, I think his wicket-to-wicket swing can be devastating. But even in Sri Lanka, I think a bowler like him who is constantly at the batsman can be very effective. The Lankans like to go after bowlers, and PK is not an easy bowler to go after. Regardless of conditions, he is a certainty in my book, not just in the 15 but in the 11.
That only leaves the reserve spinner to choose, and here in my mind is the second instance of poor treatment in recent times. From my perspective, there is no question that this spot should go to Piyush Chawla. The talent there is immense, as is the temperament, and whenever he has been given a chance, he has risen to the occasion – whether it was in England last year (after which he was promptly dropped), or against Australia in the VB series, or in the IPL (after which he was promptly ignored). His lower-order batting abilities mean that he would not only be a viable replacement for Bhajji, but also a viable substitute for PK if conditions favor a second spinner. How and why Pragyan Ojha can be preferred to him remains an utter mystery to me. From my perspective, Ojha’s was the most undeserving selection of 2008. I thought that this was Venkatapathy Raju’s nepotism towards a fellow Hyderabadi, so am perplexed that he has been kept in the picture by the Srikkanth committee as well. PC looks to me like a real long-term prospect, as someone who can push Amit Mishra for a Test spot as well. He should absolutely be part of the team as far as I am concerned.
Hence, my team for Sri Lanka:
Playing XI:
Gautam Gambhir
Virendra Sehwag (V)
Rohit Sharma
Suresh Raina
Yuvraj Singh
Mahendra Dhoni © (W)
Yusuf Pathan
Harbhajan Singh
Praveen Kumar
Ishant Sharma
Munaf Patel
Reserves:
Subramaniam Badrinath
Robin Uthappa
Irfan Pathan
Piyush Chawla
Thursday, December 18, 2008
What a win!
It is just a few hours before the commencement of the Mohali Test, and I am still recovering from the excitement of Chennai. It was just one of those perfect Test matches, a true celebration of cricket at its best. In the past, such perfect Test matches have usually ended up with India narrowly losing – think Bangalore 1987, or Chennai a decade ago, both against Pakistan.
There isn’t too much to say about India’s performance except gasp in admiration. As Satish pointed out in a recent comment, we are now starting to play like Australia. I know there are still skeptics amongst the populace – people who think we are not good enough, or consistent enough, to be considered a great team.
This may be true in part – we are not yet a great team like the Aussies have been this past decade. But that kind of greatness gets established over years, not months, and comes very rarely in any sport. The quality that Australia has shown has only really been witnessed twice before in the more than a century-year old history of cricket – first, by Bradman’s Australians, and then by Clive Lloyd’s West Indians. It is good to aspire to that kind of greatness, but no indictment if we fail to achieve it. Certainly, this Indian team is beginning to look as good as some of the very good teams of the past three decades – Australia under the Chappells in the 1970s; Pakistan under Imran Khan in the 1980s.
There is one thing that encourages me most about the way this team is playing now. And that is the way we fought back from the brink of defeat in Chennai. When people think of the Aussies at their peak, the tendency is to think of an all-conquering unit. But in fact, the Aussies have stuttered often this past decade, especially with their top-order batting. Their strength has been their ability to bounce back consistently from perilous situations, either due to terrific lower-order batting (Steve Waugh; Gilchrist; Symonds) or the ability of their bowlers to take a slew of wickets quickly (Shane Warne most often, but even Mitch Johnson against South Africa yesterday). India has consistently failed on that count, but this Indian side seems made of sterner stuff. The run chase in Chennai was remarkable; but this stomach for a fight was seen as early as Lord’s last year, when Dhoni hung on for a draw that eventually helped us win the series. And it was seen again in Bangalore against Australia, when the lower-order batting of Bhajji and Zak not only pulled off an unlikely draw, but set the stage for our subsequent dominance in the series.
There are those who will trot out the fact that beating Australia was not such a big deal, because they aren’t the team that they were. They may not be the team that they were, but they are still a terrific team – just ask South Africa, who has within two days surrendered positions of strength twice to already be under the cosh against the same Aussie team that has a 0-3 record against us over the past 6 Tests. And there are those who will go on about our “poor” record overseas – this is, at this point, just an empirical falsity, since India’s record overseas over the past decade is second only to Australia’s. Certainly, we were undone by Ajantha Mendis’s genius in Sri Lanka this summer; but I am fairly confident that we won’t be the last team to be similarly undone. This is a very good team playing some inspired cricket; and the Chennai win is really something to rejoice in.
Of course, much is being made of Viru and Sachin, and rightly so. But for me, there were three other little moments in the game that were absolutely central in shaping the outcome. The first was the brace of boundaries that Yuvraj played against Graeme Swann as soon as he came in. At 224 for 4, Yuvi walked in to a high pressure situation. Another wicket, and England would have been well on top. Yuvi was playing quite possibly for his Test match future. Even in one-dayers, he is a shaky starter. Even when set, he is shaky against off-spin. Swann was bowling beautifully, getting drift, turn and unpredictable bounce. Yet, in the second or third over he played Swann, Yuvi played what to me was the shot of the match – going on the back foot and playing with a horizontal bat, as if playing the square cut; but placing the ball perfectly between extra cover and mid-off. There was little flourish to the shot, it was almost like a back-foot defensive block; but the timing was so good that it raced to the fence. He followed that up with a trademark Yuvraj slog-sweep over square leg for another boundary.
Those two shots were amazing, but the crucial moment came in the following over, when Pietersen immediately removed Swann and replaced him with Monty. And at that point, in my mind, the tide of the game had turned irrevocably. At the best of times, Yuvi prefers playing left-arm spin to off-spin. In this game, Swann was bowling far better than Monty. But most of all, it sent a strong signal – that at the first sign of aggression, even from someone as vulnerable as Yuvraj going into this innings, KP was going to do what the batsmen wanted him to do. It was an indication of the defensive mindset that ultimately cost England the game. Much criticism has been directed at Monty for his defensive bowling; but in fact, KP’s captaincy was no less defensive. It wasn’t just the bizarre placement of a deep point after lunch on Day 5, a position that had no earthly use whatsoever; it was also the removal of Swann. Had Swann been persisted with, there is no question that Yuvi would have tried targeting him some more, and perhaps another quick 20 or 30 would have been conceded. But I’m willing to bet that, the way Swann was bowling, he would quite likely have picked up Yuvi’s wicket as well. It was all very well for Flintoff to jibber and jabber at Yuvraj and try and psyche him out with chatter. But when it came to actions, England had already conceded that they were afraid of Yuvi, and at that point, the mind games had definitively been won by India.
The second and third key moments came on the 4th afternoon. Much has been made of India’s batting heroics, but the fast bowlers again delivered when it mattered most, and that post-lunch session, when England added just 57 runs in spite of being in a position of such strength, really cost them. The first thing that made that possible was Flintoff’s early dismissal. Strauss and Collingwood had provided the perfect platform. But that platform needed to be taken advantage of, and what England really needed on Strauss’s dismissal was a quick 30 or 40 to take the game out of India’s reach and set up a strong declaration. Matt Prior has looked good with the bat, but it was really Flintoff who has the ability to play that kind of game-defining innings. Yet in the space of four deliveries, Ishant Sharma had Flintoff on his way. That little spell won’t be remembered as much as Ishant’s tormenting of Ricky Ponting through the year; but that is only because Ponting survived long enough to be tormented. In fact, that over to Flintoff was about as perfect an over as Ishant has bowled all year – a couple of perfect short balls to set things up, then the perfectly pitched good length outswinger in the corridor of uncertainty that Flintoff just had to play at. Over and over again this year, Ishant has produced the perfect little spell at just the right stage of the game to get the key wickets, and this was another instance of that. A look at statistics and figures will tell us that Harbhajan Singh is India’s highest wicket-taker for the year. But while Bhajji has wheedled meaninglessly for many overs, it is Ishant who has taken wickets that matter when they matter. He has truly done for us what great strike bowlers do for their teams. Even half an hour of Flintoff at the crease, and we could have been looking at a very different ball game.
The third key moment was Zaheer Khan’s bowling to the tail. Wickets of Swann and Harmison don’t count as much as those of a Flintoff; but given how often tails have thwarted India in the past, it is good to see the way Zak bowls at the death. Most notable, of course, is the stunning reverse swing, which was in evidence against Australia as well, and which is every bit as prodigious, and accurate, as Wasim Akram’s was in his prime. It was well remarked that the Indians got reverse swing while Australia didn’t. What is more surprising to me is the amount of reverse swing India is getting compared to England. The Brits are apparently amongst the masters of contemporary reverse swing, and indeed the likes of Flintoff used reverse swing to devastating effect to win the Ashes in 2005. Yet there wasn’t a whimper of reverse swing from any of the England bowlers, not even Flintoff, throughout the Chennai Test.
At the end of the day, as ambassadors and sportsmen, England can hold their heads high. England is normally a team I love to hate; but they played with character, and even, for brief moments, with flair. They certainly gave us a much tougher ride than Australia did. But at the end of the day, they seemed as afraid of winning as India used to do in the 1990s, and consistently failed to press on from positions of strength. And ironically it was KP, who talks a tough talk, who was often hesitant to really turn the heat on as captain when he could have. This means that for a team that has a lot of talent and depth, England’s last significant performance still remains the 2005 Ashes – there is remarkably little to show since then.
India, on the other hand, seems in a zone. They may yet lose in Mohali - in the past, highs like this have been followed by arrogance and complacency – but there is clearly enormous self-belief, and enormous belief amongst team members in each other. What is really exciting for me about the Chennai win, though, is that it has combined two very different styles of winning that India has employed in the past. The one, most common through the early 2000s, was the Miracle Win, where the unbelievable heroics of one or two men would create victories that would be etched in the memory forever. Kolkata 2001 is the classic example here, but there were other less remarkable ones scripted through the 90s on the backs of a Tendulkar or Azharuddin or Kumble special, or in the 1980s because of Kapil Dev’s single-handed heroics. The problem with such victories was that they were rarely replicable – they made India one of the most dangerous teams in the game on their day, a team to always fear; but 9 times out of 10, one would be left hoping for a miraculous performance and instead be given a mediocre one.
Over the past couple of years, however, the Miracle Wins have been replaced by the Team Effort. The three wins against Australia this year were all comprehensive, but none of them was marked by a single stand-out performance. In some ways, that bodes better for the long-term future of the team; but it is not the stuff of dreams that the Indian cricket fan thrives on. Indeed, the aftermath of the recent win against Australia was almost a certain anti-climax – as in great show, chaps, but what do we tell the grandchildren? Chennai, however, had it all. Viru, Sachin and Yuvraj played out of their skins, and the first two at least played knocks the likes of which they might never be able to repeat; but at the same time, every single person other than Dravid made some significant contribution that went towards this win. It is that combination of individual brilliance and solid teamwork that makes this win so special for me.
There isn’t too much to say about India’s performance except gasp in admiration. As Satish pointed out in a recent comment, we are now starting to play like Australia. I know there are still skeptics amongst the populace – people who think we are not good enough, or consistent enough, to be considered a great team.
This may be true in part – we are not yet a great team like the Aussies have been this past decade. But that kind of greatness gets established over years, not months, and comes very rarely in any sport. The quality that Australia has shown has only really been witnessed twice before in the more than a century-year old history of cricket – first, by Bradman’s Australians, and then by Clive Lloyd’s West Indians. It is good to aspire to that kind of greatness, but no indictment if we fail to achieve it. Certainly, this Indian team is beginning to look as good as some of the very good teams of the past three decades – Australia under the Chappells in the 1970s; Pakistan under Imran Khan in the 1980s.
There is one thing that encourages me most about the way this team is playing now. And that is the way we fought back from the brink of defeat in Chennai. When people think of the Aussies at their peak, the tendency is to think of an all-conquering unit. But in fact, the Aussies have stuttered often this past decade, especially with their top-order batting. Their strength has been their ability to bounce back consistently from perilous situations, either due to terrific lower-order batting (Steve Waugh; Gilchrist; Symonds) or the ability of their bowlers to take a slew of wickets quickly (Shane Warne most often, but even Mitch Johnson against South Africa yesterday). India has consistently failed on that count, but this Indian side seems made of sterner stuff. The run chase in Chennai was remarkable; but this stomach for a fight was seen as early as Lord’s last year, when Dhoni hung on for a draw that eventually helped us win the series. And it was seen again in Bangalore against Australia, when the lower-order batting of Bhajji and Zak not only pulled off an unlikely draw, but set the stage for our subsequent dominance in the series.
There are those who will trot out the fact that beating Australia was not such a big deal, because they aren’t the team that they were. They may not be the team that they were, but they are still a terrific team – just ask South Africa, who has within two days surrendered positions of strength twice to already be under the cosh against the same Aussie team that has a 0-3 record against us over the past 6 Tests. And there are those who will go on about our “poor” record overseas – this is, at this point, just an empirical falsity, since India’s record overseas over the past decade is second only to Australia’s. Certainly, we were undone by Ajantha Mendis’s genius in Sri Lanka this summer; but I am fairly confident that we won’t be the last team to be similarly undone. This is a very good team playing some inspired cricket; and the Chennai win is really something to rejoice in.
Of course, much is being made of Viru and Sachin, and rightly so. But for me, there were three other little moments in the game that were absolutely central in shaping the outcome. The first was the brace of boundaries that Yuvraj played against Graeme Swann as soon as he came in. At 224 for 4, Yuvi walked in to a high pressure situation. Another wicket, and England would have been well on top. Yuvi was playing quite possibly for his Test match future. Even in one-dayers, he is a shaky starter. Even when set, he is shaky against off-spin. Swann was bowling beautifully, getting drift, turn and unpredictable bounce. Yet, in the second or third over he played Swann, Yuvi played what to me was the shot of the match – going on the back foot and playing with a horizontal bat, as if playing the square cut; but placing the ball perfectly between extra cover and mid-off. There was little flourish to the shot, it was almost like a back-foot defensive block; but the timing was so good that it raced to the fence. He followed that up with a trademark Yuvraj slog-sweep over square leg for another boundary.
Those two shots were amazing, but the crucial moment came in the following over, when Pietersen immediately removed Swann and replaced him with Monty. And at that point, in my mind, the tide of the game had turned irrevocably. At the best of times, Yuvi prefers playing left-arm spin to off-spin. In this game, Swann was bowling far better than Monty. But most of all, it sent a strong signal – that at the first sign of aggression, even from someone as vulnerable as Yuvraj going into this innings, KP was going to do what the batsmen wanted him to do. It was an indication of the defensive mindset that ultimately cost England the game. Much criticism has been directed at Monty for his defensive bowling; but in fact, KP’s captaincy was no less defensive. It wasn’t just the bizarre placement of a deep point after lunch on Day 5, a position that had no earthly use whatsoever; it was also the removal of Swann. Had Swann been persisted with, there is no question that Yuvi would have tried targeting him some more, and perhaps another quick 20 or 30 would have been conceded. But I’m willing to bet that, the way Swann was bowling, he would quite likely have picked up Yuvi’s wicket as well. It was all very well for Flintoff to jibber and jabber at Yuvraj and try and psyche him out with chatter. But when it came to actions, England had already conceded that they were afraid of Yuvi, and at that point, the mind games had definitively been won by India.
The second and third key moments came on the 4th afternoon. Much has been made of India’s batting heroics, but the fast bowlers again delivered when it mattered most, and that post-lunch session, when England added just 57 runs in spite of being in a position of such strength, really cost them. The first thing that made that possible was Flintoff’s early dismissal. Strauss and Collingwood had provided the perfect platform. But that platform needed to be taken advantage of, and what England really needed on Strauss’s dismissal was a quick 30 or 40 to take the game out of India’s reach and set up a strong declaration. Matt Prior has looked good with the bat, but it was really Flintoff who has the ability to play that kind of game-defining innings. Yet in the space of four deliveries, Ishant Sharma had Flintoff on his way. That little spell won’t be remembered as much as Ishant’s tormenting of Ricky Ponting through the year; but that is only because Ponting survived long enough to be tormented. In fact, that over to Flintoff was about as perfect an over as Ishant has bowled all year – a couple of perfect short balls to set things up, then the perfectly pitched good length outswinger in the corridor of uncertainty that Flintoff just had to play at. Over and over again this year, Ishant has produced the perfect little spell at just the right stage of the game to get the key wickets, and this was another instance of that. A look at statistics and figures will tell us that Harbhajan Singh is India’s highest wicket-taker for the year. But while Bhajji has wheedled meaninglessly for many overs, it is Ishant who has taken wickets that matter when they matter. He has truly done for us what great strike bowlers do for their teams. Even half an hour of Flintoff at the crease, and we could have been looking at a very different ball game.
The third key moment was Zaheer Khan’s bowling to the tail. Wickets of Swann and Harmison don’t count as much as those of a Flintoff; but given how often tails have thwarted India in the past, it is good to see the way Zak bowls at the death. Most notable, of course, is the stunning reverse swing, which was in evidence against Australia as well, and which is every bit as prodigious, and accurate, as Wasim Akram’s was in his prime. It was well remarked that the Indians got reverse swing while Australia didn’t. What is more surprising to me is the amount of reverse swing India is getting compared to England. The Brits are apparently amongst the masters of contemporary reverse swing, and indeed the likes of Flintoff used reverse swing to devastating effect to win the Ashes in 2005. Yet there wasn’t a whimper of reverse swing from any of the England bowlers, not even Flintoff, throughout the Chennai Test.
At the end of the day, as ambassadors and sportsmen, England can hold their heads high. England is normally a team I love to hate; but they played with character, and even, for brief moments, with flair. They certainly gave us a much tougher ride than Australia did. But at the end of the day, they seemed as afraid of winning as India used to do in the 1990s, and consistently failed to press on from positions of strength. And ironically it was KP, who talks a tough talk, who was often hesitant to really turn the heat on as captain when he could have. This means that for a team that has a lot of talent and depth, England’s last significant performance still remains the 2005 Ashes – there is remarkably little to show since then.
India, on the other hand, seems in a zone. They may yet lose in Mohali - in the past, highs like this have been followed by arrogance and complacency – but there is clearly enormous self-belief, and enormous belief amongst team members in each other. What is really exciting for me about the Chennai win, though, is that it has combined two very different styles of winning that India has employed in the past. The one, most common through the early 2000s, was the Miracle Win, where the unbelievable heroics of one or two men would create victories that would be etched in the memory forever. Kolkata 2001 is the classic example here, but there were other less remarkable ones scripted through the 90s on the backs of a Tendulkar or Azharuddin or Kumble special, or in the 1980s because of Kapil Dev’s single-handed heroics. The problem with such victories was that they were rarely replicable – they made India one of the most dangerous teams in the game on their day, a team to always fear; but 9 times out of 10, one would be left hoping for a miraculous performance and instead be given a mediocre one.
Over the past couple of years, however, the Miracle Wins have been replaced by the Team Effort. The three wins against Australia this year were all comprehensive, but none of them was marked by a single stand-out performance. In some ways, that bodes better for the long-term future of the team; but it is not the stuff of dreams that the Indian cricket fan thrives on. Indeed, the aftermath of the recent win against Australia was almost a certain anti-climax – as in great show, chaps, but what do we tell the grandchildren? Chennai, however, had it all. Viru, Sachin and Yuvraj played out of their skins, and the first two at least played knocks the likes of which they might never be able to repeat; but at the same time, every single person other than Dravid made some significant contribution that went towards this win. It is that combination of individual brilliance and solid teamwork that makes this win so special for me.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Worries after Day 3
Well, cricket really is a glorious game, isn’t it? After dominating Australia over 6 Tests, and England over 5 ODIs, it seemed obvious that India is the second best, and possibly the best, team in world cricket today. It took only two sessions of sustained bowling from England to remind us that this is not necessarily the case. It has been a bizarre year for India – the dominance over Australia has been thorough, but we struggled against South Africa, and were outclassed by Sri Lanka. So against the other three teams – South Africa, England and Sri Lanka – that we are vying for the no. 2 spot with, it is not clear that we are clearly better.
Part of this, I think, comes from the fact that Australia does bring out the best in us. While other teams get overwhelmed while playing the Aussies, we have now reached a stage where we really seem to believe that our best performances are likely to come against them. But part of it also comes from the fact that, in comparison to South Africa, Sri Lanka or England, Australia’s bowling attack is mediocre. South Africa has the most menacing seam attack in world cricket today, with three fast bowlers of different styles who can all bowl in the high 140s. Sri Lanka has the dual genius of Mendis and Murali, and once Lasith Malinga becomes fully fit, they will have a genuine fast bowler to open up the top order for the spin duo. And England has serious depth and variety in their bowling. Harmison and Anderson are temperamental, but the formers’ ability to hit the deck and bounce it complements the latter’s ability to swing the ball at pace. Flintoff remains a phenomenon – his ability to keep it tight, build pressure, yet consistently bowl wicket-taking balls is virtually unparalleled, and had it not been for injuries, he would clearly be the best fast bowler in world cricket today. The fact that Monty, who’s a pretty useful bowler, looked the most pedestrian of England’s bowlers on view is an indication of just how well their seamers bowled. When you think of those who are in the wings – the tireless left-arm swing of Ryan Sidebottom; the enormous talent of Stuart Broad; and possibly, just possibly, the brutally quick reverse-swing of Simon Jones – then you see a breadth and depth of fast bowling that Australia just doesn’t possess. India struggles against bowlers who bowl straight and make them play. Australia’s most successful bowler in the recent series, Mitchell Johnson, bowled nearly 3/4th of his deliveries wide of off-stump. The Aussies have one class act in Brett Lee. When he went off the boil, as he did in India, there was really no one else who could build pressure. Our challenge against England in the days to come is going to be much more acute. I still think England’s batting is far weaker than Australia’s; but our batsmen are not going to have easy pickings in this series.
Coming to this game specifically – it really does look a lost cause. India’s 4th innings performances have gotten better in recent times. But England will remember Mumbai in 2006, and they certainly have the bowlers to exploit a 5th day pitch with unpredictable bounce. India is actually is one of those terrible situations with little room to maneuver. Another 100 runs from England and a win will be impossible. But ironically, if England collapse on the 4th morning and leave India with a more gettable target in the vicinity of 300, I think that’s going to be in some ways even more difficult. It will take a draw out of the equation; but it will also start casting questions about the nature of the pitch in the minds of the Indian batsmen. India’s best hope almost lies in playing a containing game, and having England bat till tea or a little after on the 4th day. If England is made to score at less than 3 an over, then they are always going to be wary of making a declaration; if they are not dismissed, then they will probably bat on till the target is at least 400 before they do so. If India has 4 sessions or a little less to bat, then they would fancy their chances of escaping with a draw, as they managed both at Lord’s and against Australia at Bangalore in the last 18 months. Strauss and Collingwood have shown that with a little application, there are no real devils in this wicket. India actually stands a better chance of getting out of this one if England’s batsmen manage to further confirm that impression on Day 4.
For India, there are two huge worries, and no surprises for guessing what they are. The first is Dravid, and the second is Yuvraj Singh. Dravid was the one weak spot in the Indian side in the Australia series. Even when India got a good start, the first wicket would invariably be followed by a quick second. Even when Dravid himself looked good, he found uncharacteristic ways of getting out. By the time Nagpur rolled around, Dravid was so out of it that even his normally customary hands were failing him at slip; and his batting skills seemed long forgotten on his favorite Test venue. The first innings here was no different, and the fact that Dravid didn’t have the cushion of a big partnership behind him only added to the pressure he felt.
The larger question of whether Dravid should be persisted with or dropped won’t go away unless Dravid himself answers it, either with a big innings (hopefully) or with retirement. I had personally suggested before the team was selected that the team, and Dravid, would have been better off had he been left out for this series, especially given Murali Vijay’s impressive debut at Nagpur. But in either case, the stubborn persistence with Dravid at 3 has to end. Laxman, in any case, is wonderfully suited to that position; his form is streets ahead of Dravid’s; and in the second innings situation that we find ourselves in, it is really important that our four best batsmen of the moment occupy the top 4 slots. Allowing Dravid to bat at 5 or 6 is, for the next innings or three, a nice halfway-house between deciding whether to keep him or axe him. It will hopefully take some pressure off him also; let’s remember that his monumental 180 alongside Laxman in Calcutta 2001 was made batting at 6.
Yuvraj’s case is just as tricky. All the debates about whether he is good enough to play at Test level remain after his 1st innings. Like Dravid, his problem too is partly in the mind. It seemed like there was no plan in his own head about how he would tackle this innings. His natural instinct is to attack. The problem is, unlike Sehwag, Yuvraj’s attacking technique is full of holes. Even when he is going berserk, Viru is a technically perfect batsman. He may play risky shots and take on too much, and sometimes he looks stupid doing so. But he rarely plays across the line, and except for a tendency to slash at wide deliveries outside off-stump, doesn’t have too many technical weaknesses. Yuvi’s flamboyance, however, is full of technical deficiencies. He has a big back-lift, which makes him vulnerable to the quick moving delivery; his footwork is poor, which leaves him vulnerable to the out-swinger; and his struggles against quality spin are well documented. Field restrictions and his own arrogance allow him to overcome these deficiencies in one-day games; but there is clearly still a lack of confidence and self-belief when he bats in Tests.
The way he allowed Flintoff to psyche him out is a classic example of that. All Flintoff did was to combine restrictive bowling with a bit of chatter. Viru has his own pulverize-or-perish method of dealing with restrictive bowling. But all other good Test batsmen, if they are confronted with a good bowler who is giving nothing away, are capable of reining themselves in, seeing him off, and turning their sights elsewhere. The Indians have become particularly good at this, and even naturally attacking batsmen like Gambhir, Tendulkar, Laxman and Dhoni have become really good at adapting the pace of their innings to the needs of the situation and the quality of the bowling. Yuvi, however, got rattled after just two overs of Flintoff probing outside his off-stump. That suggests an inability to tailor his batting to the ebb and flow of Test match cricket. Even his recent Test successes – the 169 against Pakistan, or the nearly run a ball 77 against Sri Lanka in Ahmedabad – were about him being in complete control of the situation. But in Test cricket, there are bound to be phases where the bowler takes control, and good Test batsmen are those who know how to ride out those situations. Gambhir, more than anyone else, has learnt this admirably over the past year. If Yuvi is to really take Ganguly’s place, he’s going to need to learn this sooner rather than later.
I think that Yuvi’s selection was probably more justified than Dravid’s. He was colossal in the one-dayers, and he is a form player, so there would have been hope that he would carry that confidence forward into the Tests. And that might still happen. But there is another way to look at this, and that is that a batsman who has over the last 8 years of his career failed to convince in the longer version of the game has been drafted in, for the fourth or fifth time, on the back of a couple of big one-day knocks on a hope and prayer that those will translate into success in Tests. On the other hand, Subramaniam Badrinath, the man who was in the wings already, has been kept waiting for longer, in spite of proven ability to play the long form of the game. So Badri’s performances in Ranji Trophy have been disregarded, and he hasn’t been given the chances that Yuvi has to prove himself through the one-day game. Yuvi, in the 1st innings, walked into a situation that was remarkably similar to that which Andrew Symonds found himself in during the Melbourne Test in late 2006. Symonds was an unquestioned star in one-day internationals, his abilities as a Test batsman were in doubt, and his temperament, like Yuvi’s, swayed between the arrogant and the self-destructive. The Aussies had lost four early wickets with less than 100 on the board. And he took England apart to play a career-defining innings, making him not just a fixture in the Australian side, but, overnight, one of the most feared batsmen in Test cricket. That Yuvi failed to take that chance means that, at the moment, the parallels to Ajay Jadeja cry out more strongly than those to Symonds.
But there is a larger team story to this, because Yuvi’s failure shows just how important Sourav Ganguly has been to us these last two years. In some ways, I think Ganguly is going to be missed more than Kumble. Kumble, for months, has looked jaded and past his best – the question around him really was when he was going to retire. And in Amit Mishra, India has found a more than adequate replacement, certainly for home Tests. But Ganguly has played some of his best cricket over the past two years, and his only failure during this time has been in Sri Lanka. It just puts in perspective how ridiculous the questions were that were raised about him, especially by Dilip Vengsarkar’s selection committee.
The difference between Yuvraj and Ganguly is not simply one of achievement. As I said, Yuvi might yet come good, perhaps even in the next couple of days. The difference was of temperament. Both Yuvraj and Ganguly are confidence cricketers who back themselves, and who have in the process managed to achieve much more in their careers than their techniques alone would have allowed them. But Yuvraj’s confidence is built on fragile foundations – he is good at taking control of situations, and backs himself when he is on a high. Ganguly, on the other hand, was best in crises – either when the team needed him most, or on the many occasions when critics had written him off. And since his comeback to the side in South Africa in 2006, that crisis-induced confidence had almost a zen-like quality to it. Dravid’s own slump in form started in that same series in South Africa. What actually happened, without our noticing it, was that Ganguly, over the past two years, has taken on Dravid’s role in the team. His technique is not that which can earn him a sobriquet like The Wall, but Sourav has, most certainly, been a rock. Even his 50s and 60s have come at crucial times, and there have of course been the great knocks – the double hundred against Pakistan, the series-leveling 80-odd against South Africa in Kanpur, the 100 against Australia in his farewell series. The Indian top order has played with confidence knowing that even if they fail, Sourav will still be walking in at 5 or 6; and this has more than compensated for Dravid’s loss of form and consistency. And like Dravid at his best, Sourav has been able to shift gears almost at will – playing with dour obduracy when the situation has demanded, and lighting into the opposition when that is what the team has needed. Quite simply, the last two years have been Ganguly’s best and Dravid’s worst – and yet it is Ganguly whose future in the game was questioned virtually every step of the way. A middle-order, in this series, of Laxman, Tendulkar and Ganguly at 3, 4 and 5 would have looked ever so good – and in that situation, it wouldn’t have mattered whether the 6th batsman was Yuvraj or Badri or Vijay or Rohit, any one of them would have had the cushion of five top batsmen and Dhoni surrounding them. I think there is no question that Vengsarkar hastened Ganguly’s exit from international cricket by at least a year, and that is the biggest blot on a selectorial tenure that was marked with hubris.
Anyway – with two days left to play, someone needs to play out of their skins to save this one for us. The signs are not good: Dravid is in miserable form; Yuvraj is still searching for the Test batsman within him; Sachin’s second innings record is poor; Viru and Laxman have career averages against England that are significantly lower than their overall averages; and Dhoni has a dodgy ankle. This means that to my mind, the key to India’s fortunes really lies with Gautam Gambhir. He needs to show the other batsmen that this wicket can be negotiated; he needs to set his stall out here for the big one. He has been one of India’s stars this year; and had it not been for his moment of stupidity in elbowing Shane Watson, he would undoubtedly have won man of the series against the Aussies. This is his chance to make up for that stupid moment, and lead the way out of Chennai unscathed to Mohali.
Meanwhile, Dhoni has a man-management decision to make. He has to do one of the following things. Either he has to tell Dravid and Yuvraj that reputations don’t matter here – it is sink or swim time, and either they perform in the second innings or lose their places to Vijay and Badri in Mohali. Or he needs to back them to the hilt, assure them that their place in the side is secure no matter what, and figure out a way to inspire them to play their natural game. In either case, Laxman needs to bat at 3. In the latter case, I would further send Yuvi in ahead of Dravid at 5, with license to play his shots and take the attack back to England. One way or another, Dravid and Yuvi need to be certain in their minds about what they plan to do in the second innings. Their only hope – and probably the team’s – lies in being uncluttered in the head, and Dhoni has to decide whether carrot or stick is more likely to induce that clearness of purpose.
Part of this, I think, comes from the fact that Australia does bring out the best in us. While other teams get overwhelmed while playing the Aussies, we have now reached a stage where we really seem to believe that our best performances are likely to come against them. But part of it also comes from the fact that, in comparison to South Africa, Sri Lanka or England, Australia’s bowling attack is mediocre. South Africa has the most menacing seam attack in world cricket today, with three fast bowlers of different styles who can all bowl in the high 140s. Sri Lanka has the dual genius of Mendis and Murali, and once Lasith Malinga becomes fully fit, they will have a genuine fast bowler to open up the top order for the spin duo. And England has serious depth and variety in their bowling. Harmison and Anderson are temperamental, but the formers’ ability to hit the deck and bounce it complements the latter’s ability to swing the ball at pace. Flintoff remains a phenomenon – his ability to keep it tight, build pressure, yet consistently bowl wicket-taking balls is virtually unparalleled, and had it not been for injuries, he would clearly be the best fast bowler in world cricket today. The fact that Monty, who’s a pretty useful bowler, looked the most pedestrian of England’s bowlers on view is an indication of just how well their seamers bowled. When you think of those who are in the wings – the tireless left-arm swing of Ryan Sidebottom; the enormous talent of Stuart Broad; and possibly, just possibly, the brutally quick reverse-swing of Simon Jones – then you see a breadth and depth of fast bowling that Australia just doesn’t possess. India struggles against bowlers who bowl straight and make them play. Australia’s most successful bowler in the recent series, Mitchell Johnson, bowled nearly 3/4th of his deliveries wide of off-stump. The Aussies have one class act in Brett Lee. When he went off the boil, as he did in India, there was really no one else who could build pressure. Our challenge against England in the days to come is going to be much more acute. I still think England’s batting is far weaker than Australia’s; but our batsmen are not going to have easy pickings in this series.
Coming to this game specifically – it really does look a lost cause. India’s 4th innings performances have gotten better in recent times. But England will remember Mumbai in 2006, and they certainly have the bowlers to exploit a 5th day pitch with unpredictable bounce. India is actually is one of those terrible situations with little room to maneuver. Another 100 runs from England and a win will be impossible. But ironically, if England collapse on the 4th morning and leave India with a more gettable target in the vicinity of 300, I think that’s going to be in some ways even more difficult. It will take a draw out of the equation; but it will also start casting questions about the nature of the pitch in the minds of the Indian batsmen. India’s best hope almost lies in playing a containing game, and having England bat till tea or a little after on the 4th day. If England is made to score at less than 3 an over, then they are always going to be wary of making a declaration; if they are not dismissed, then they will probably bat on till the target is at least 400 before they do so. If India has 4 sessions or a little less to bat, then they would fancy their chances of escaping with a draw, as they managed both at Lord’s and against Australia at Bangalore in the last 18 months. Strauss and Collingwood have shown that with a little application, there are no real devils in this wicket. India actually stands a better chance of getting out of this one if England’s batsmen manage to further confirm that impression on Day 4.
For India, there are two huge worries, and no surprises for guessing what they are. The first is Dravid, and the second is Yuvraj Singh. Dravid was the one weak spot in the Indian side in the Australia series. Even when India got a good start, the first wicket would invariably be followed by a quick second. Even when Dravid himself looked good, he found uncharacteristic ways of getting out. By the time Nagpur rolled around, Dravid was so out of it that even his normally customary hands were failing him at slip; and his batting skills seemed long forgotten on his favorite Test venue. The first innings here was no different, and the fact that Dravid didn’t have the cushion of a big partnership behind him only added to the pressure he felt.
The larger question of whether Dravid should be persisted with or dropped won’t go away unless Dravid himself answers it, either with a big innings (hopefully) or with retirement. I had personally suggested before the team was selected that the team, and Dravid, would have been better off had he been left out for this series, especially given Murali Vijay’s impressive debut at Nagpur. But in either case, the stubborn persistence with Dravid at 3 has to end. Laxman, in any case, is wonderfully suited to that position; his form is streets ahead of Dravid’s; and in the second innings situation that we find ourselves in, it is really important that our four best batsmen of the moment occupy the top 4 slots. Allowing Dravid to bat at 5 or 6 is, for the next innings or three, a nice halfway-house between deciding whether to keep him or axe him. It will hopefully take some pressure off him also; let’s remember that his monumental 180 alongside Laxman in Calcutta 2001 was made batting at 6.
Yuvraj’s case is just as tricky. All the debates about whether he is good enough to play at Test level remain after his 1st innings. Like Dravid, his problem too is partly in the mind. It seemed like there was no plan in his own head about how he would tackle this innings. His natural instinct is to attack. The problem is, unlike Sehwag, Yuvraj’s attacking technique is full of holes. Even when he is going berserk, Viru is a technically perfect batsman. He may play risky shots and take on too much, and sometimes he looks stupid doing so. But he rarely plays across the line, and except for a tendency to slash at wide deliveries outside off-stump, doesn’t have too many technical weaknesses. Yuvi’s flamboyance, however, is full of technical deficiencies. He has a big back-lift, which makes him vulnerable to the quick moving delivery; his footwork is poor, which leaves him vulnerable to the out-swinger; and his struggles against quality spin are well documented. Field restrictions and his own arrogance allow him to overcome these deficiencies in one-day games; but there is clearly still a lack of confidence and self-belief when he bats in Tests.
The way he allowed Flintoff to psyche him out is a classic example of that. All Flintoff did was to combine restrictive bowling with a bit of chatter. Viru has his own pulverize-or-perish method of dealing with restrictive bowling. But all other good Test batsmen, if they are confronted with a good bowler who is giving nothing away, are capable of reining themselves in, seeing him off, and turning their sights elsewhere. The Indians have become particularly good at this, and even naturally attacking batsmen like Gambhir, Tendulkar, Laxman and Dhoni have become really good at adapting the pace of their innings to the needs of the situation and the quality of the bowling. Yuvi, however, got rattled after just two overs of Flintoff probing outside his off-stump. That suggests an inability to tailor his batting to the ebb and flow of Test match cricket. Even his recent Test successes – the 169 against Pakistan, or the nearly run a ball 77 against Sri Lanka in Ahmedabad – were about him being in complete control of the situation. But in Test cricket, there are bound to be phases where the bowler takes control, and good Test batsmen are those who know how to ride out those situations. Gambhir, more than anyone else, has learnt this admirably over the past year. If Yuvi is to really take Ganguly’s place, he’s going to need to learn this sooner rather than later.
I think that Yuvi’s selection was probably more justified than Dravid’s. He was colossal in the one-dayers, and he is a form player, so there would have been hope that he would carry that confidence forward into the Tests. And that might still happen. But there is another way to look at this, and that is that a batsman who has over the last 8 years of his career failed to convince in the longer version of the game has been drafted in, for the fourth or fifth time, on the back of a couple of big one-day knocks on a hope and prayer that those will translate into success in Tests. On the other hand, Subramaniam Badrinath, the man who was in the wings already, has been kept waiting for longer, in spite of proven ability to play the long form of the game. So Badri’s performances in Ranji Trophy have been disregarded, and he hasn’t been given the chances that Yuvi has to prove himself through the one-day game. Yuvi, in the 1st innings, walked into a situation that was remarkably similar to that which Andrew Symonds found himself in during the Melbourne Test in late 2006. Symonds was an unquestioned star in one-day internationals, his abilities as a Test batsman were in doubt, and his temperament, like Yuvi’s, swayed between the arrogant and the self-destructive. The Aussies had lost four early wickets with less than 100 on the board. And he took England apart to play a career-defining innings, making him not just a fixture in the Australian side, but, overnight, one of the most feared batsmen in Test cricket. That Yuvi failed to take that chance means that, at the moment, the parallels to Ajay Jadeja cry out more strongly than those to Symonds.
But there is a larger team story to this, because Yuvi’s failure shows just how important Sourav Ganguly has been to us these last two years. In some ways, I think Ganguly is going to be missed more than Kumble. Kumble, for months, has looked jaded and past his best – the question around him really was when he was going to retire. And in Amit Mishra, India has found a more than adequate replacement, certainly for home Tests. But Ganguly has played some of his best cricket over the past two years, and his only failure during this time has been in Sri Lanka. It just puts in perspective how ridiculous the questions were that were raised about him, especially by Dilip Vengsarkar’s selection committee.
The difference between Yuvraj and Ganguly is not simply one of achievement. As I said, Yuvi might yet come good, perhaps even in the next couple of days. The difference was of temperament. Both Yuvraj and Ganguly are confidence cricketers who back themselves, and who have in the process managed to achieve much more in their careers than their techniques alone would have allowed them. But Yuvraj’s confidence is built on fragile foundations – he is good at taking control of situations, and backs himself when he is on a high. Ganguly, on the other hand, was best in crises – either when the team needed him most, or on the many occasions when critics had written him off. And since his comeback to the side in South Africa in 2006, that crisis-induced confidence had almost a zen-like quality to it. Dravid’s own slump in form started in that same series in South Africa. What actually happened, without our noticing it, was that Ganguly, over the past two years, has taken on Dravid’s role in the team. His technique is not that which can earn him a sobriquet like The Wall, but Sourav has, most certainly, been a rock. Even his 50s and 60s have come at crucial times, and there have of course been the great knocks – the double hundred against Pakistan, the series-leveling 80-odd against South Africa in Kanpur, the 100 against Australia in his farewell series. The Indian top order has played with confidence knowing that even if they fail, Sourav will still be walking in at 5 or 6; and this has more than compensated for Dravid’s loss of form and consistency. And like Dravid at his best, Sourav has been able to shift gears almost at will – playing with dour obduracy when the situation has demanded, and lighting into the opposition when that is what the team has needed. Quite simply, the last two years have been Ganguly’s best and Dravid’s worst – and yet it is Ganguly whose future in the game was questioned virtually every step of the way. A middle-order, in this series, of Laxman, Tendulkar and Ganguly at 3, 4 and 5 would have looked ever so good – and in that situation, it wouldn’t have mattered whether the 6th batsman was Yuvraj or Badri or Vijay or Rohit, any one of them would have had the cushion of five top batsmen and Dhoni surrounding them. I think there is no question that Vengsarkar hastened Ganguly’s exit from international cricket by at least a year, and that is the biggest blot on a selectorial tenure that was marked with hubris.
Anyway – with two days left to play, someone needs to play out of their skins to save this one for us. The signs are not good: Dravid is in miserable form; Yuvraj is still searching for the Test batsman within him; Sachin’s second innings record is poor; Viru and Laxman have career averages against England that are significantly lower than their overall averages; and Dhoni has a dodgy ankle. This means that to my mind, the key to India’s fortunes really lies with Gautam Gambhir. He needs to show the other batsmen that this wicket can be negotiated; he needs to set his stall out here for the big one. He has been one of India’s stars this year; and had it not been for his moment of stupidity in elbowing Shane Watson, he would undoubtedly have won man of the series against the Aussies. This is his chance to make up for that stupid moment, and lead the way out of Chennai unscathed to Mohali.
Meanwhile, Dhoni has a man-management decision to make. He has to do one of the following things. Either he has to tell Dravid and Yuvraj that reputations don’t matter here – it is sink or swim time, and either they perform in the second innings or lose their places to Vijay and Badri in Mohali. Or he needs to back them to the hilt, assure them that their place in the side is secure no matter what, and figure out a way to inspire them to play their natural game. In either case, Laxman needs to bat at 3. In the latter case, I would further send Yuvi in ahead of Dravid at 5, with license to play his shots and take the attack back to England. One way or another, Dravid and Yuvi need to be certain in their minds about what they plan to do in the second innings. Their only hope – and probably the team’s – lies in being uncluttered in the head, and Dhoni has to decide whether carrot or stick is more likely to induce that clearness of purpose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)