Why Laxman is integral to the future of Indian cricket

By this time, I am only watching the series in Australia out of masochistic impulse. This is without a doubt the worst cricket I have seen India play in the 30 years I have been following the game. In the maulings of the late 80s and early 90s, there were silver linings (Manjrekar standing up to the West Indian quicks in 1989; a young Tendulkar’s stunning early hundreds in adversity in Old Trafford and Perth; and so on). In 1999, we could take solace in the fact that we were beaten by a far superior Australian side, one that was about to embark on its record-breaking 16-consecutive Test win streak. In England this summer, we hid behind injuries as an excuse, and at least had Dravid’s batting to savor. None of those excuses apply here. The first 11 has retained full fitness throughout the first three Tests; it is Australia that has had to do without their key all-rounder throughout, and in Perth, their main strike bowler. There is not a single century to show for our batting efforts, even though each of the top 7 batsmen has reached 50 at least once. (Also, in most cases, only once). And, what hurts the most, we are not up against an exceptional Australian side, but a brittle one. This is a side that has been bowled out for 100 thrice in the last year, including by Pakistan, which is hardly a world champion side at the moment. It is a side that was coming off a home defeat against New Zealand. It is a side where, arguably, only Michael Clarke and Peter Siddle were fixtures going into the series. A side that contained three aging players – Ponting, Hussey and Haddin – fighting for their careers; one player (Hilfenhaus) making a comeback after having been mauled by England the last time he played Test cricket; and a bunch of youngsters, some of whom had already shown promise, but all of whom were yet to establish themselves. If you matched up the teams on paper, the series should have, at this stage, been 2-1 in one direction or another, with everything to play for in Adelaide.

But what depresses me is not the abysmal performance on the field. We have been outthought and outplayed by a team that has played better cricket, led by a captain who has been tactically brilliant and inspirational as a batsman, with five quick bowlers who have been unrelenting, fast, capable of moving the ball, and always coming at the Indians. Throughout the series, even on the rare occasions when partnerships have been built, a wicket has always seemed just a ball away. So let’s face it – the better team won.

What depresses me rather is the response to this win – within certain quarters of the team, amongst those who should be taking responsibility for the defeat, amongst the so-called pundits who ought to know better, and throughout the media. Because really, the only, single, tangible thing that I have heard as a solution to this defeat is – it is time for V.V.S. Laxman’s career to end, and for Rohit Sharma to take his place. Even Sidharth Monga, a cricinfo journalist whom I have great respect for, has written his obituary to Laxman’s career, as an immediate response to the second innings debacle at Perth. Even though, in that very innings, there were failures from Gambhir, Sehwag, Tendulkar and Dhoni as well, with Sehwag’s and Dhoni’s innings being particularly abject.

There are two reasons why such a response is so depressing. The first is – it does absolutely nothing to address the fundamental structural issues that we are facing. We have not lost in Australia (or England) because Laxman failed. We lost because of poor captaincy; because our openers have failed to give us starts; because our bowling has lacked depth, and even when the bowlers have punched above their weights, they have not had enough backing from the captain; because our tail has effectively started at number 7, with the exception of the occasional contribution from Ravi Ashwin; and because of the absolute lack of accountability that permeates our cricketing culture.

Dhoni has claimed that “he is to blame”, and then immediately has the temerity to talk about phasing out the seniors. Srikkanth’s only intervention, first after Sydney and then after Perth, is “it’s not my fault, I picked the best team”. (The idea that Vinay Kumar could be part of a “best team” is laughable, when the likes of Irfan Pathan and Ashok Dinda are sitting at home, raking in wickets by the bucketful). And Duncan Fletcher, whose claim to fame is his ability to improve the techniques of young batsmen, has not a word to say when the techniques of even our established batsmen have been exposed by the moving ball; but he continues to draw his fat pay check. It is all very well to say that the youngsters need time, or that the seniors are past their best. But what about Gambhir and Sehwag, who have shown in the past that they have the techniques to succeed in South Africa, Australia (though Gambhir has only played one-day internationals in Australia) and (in Sehwag’s case) England, but who have been opened up and hung out to dry by the Aussie quicks? In Gambhir’s case, all the bad habits that Gary Kirsten had worked so hard to rid him off are back again – what is Fletcher’s contribution in stopping their slide?

Why is no one calling for Dhoni’s head, or Srikkanth’s, or Fletcher’s? How is dropping Laxman going to sort any of this out? Over the past year, in four spectacular implosions against Pakistan, England, South Africa and New Zealand, Australia made 380 for 40 (an innings average of 95 all out). Between the entry of Michael Clarke at Sydney and the exit of Ed Cowan at Perth, Australia made 836 for 1 (an innings average of 8360 all out). It is not Laxman who was responsible for that, and bringing in Rohit Sharma is not going to address it.

I would like to make two arguments. First, if we are actually looking for people who need to be dropped, then there has to be some empirical basis for it; simply making someone a scapegoat is not going to have the desired effect, and at this point, the gunning for Laxman’s head has all the makings of scapegoating, nothing else. And second – a more radical assertion perhaps – since so many people are talking about dropping Laxman so that we can “build for the future”, I would argue that Laxman is integral to building the future. I take up each of these arguments below.

Empirically, who is the weakest link in our batting?

If one is going to actually look at batting failures, then there are three levels or horizons at which one can do so. The first is at the most immediate horizon – for instance, the current series just gone by. The second is a slightly longer horizon – ideally, the last 18 months to 2 years. It is possible for someone to have a poor series, since all batsmen go through poor form. But if someone has been given a chance for two years and has done poorly, then there is a more serious issue at stake. The third is the question of the intangible: what is the particular value that this batsman brings to the team as a whole, which goes beyond figures or statistics? Let me address each of these in comparative perspective.

In terms of this particular series, only Tendulkar has crossed 200 runs. Laxman and Dhoni bring up the rear amongst the frontline batsmen (if Dhoni can be called that), with 102 runs, with Dhoni’s average marginally inflated by a not out, but still only an unflattering 20 to Laxman’s 17. But the fact is, everyone failed, and the difference between Laxman and the second highest scorer for India, Dravid, is only 66 runs. Sehwag has made only 16 runs more than Laxman, which is statistically insignificant. And that is largely on the strength of his 1st innings 67 at Melbourne, a score he reached only because of the Aussies’ largesse in dropping him twice. Yes, Laxman has failed; but so has everyone else. Only Sachin has made more than one 50 (he has made all of 2). And even his average for the series is nearly 15 less than his career average. Until he was dropped at Perth, Ashwin was India’s second highest run-getter, and would probably have retained that spot had he played. That says it all. In this collective failure, why single out Laxman?

If we look at the slightly longer horizon of the past two years, then we get the following figures for our top order (starting from January 1, 2010, till the end of the Perth Test):

• Gambhir has an average of 32.05 with 1 century, which was against Bangladesh. If you take Bangladesh out of the equation, his average over the past 2 years is 28.5.
• Sehwag’s average is a healthier 46. But on closer inspection: his average in this period in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh is nearly 60. His average in South Africa, England and Australia (three countries where he has enjoyed much success in the past) in this period is 17, with no centuries, and a highest score of 67 made at Melbourne with those two lives. If Gambhir has failed unequivocally in this period, then Sehwag has turned into a flat-track bully.
• Dravid in this time has a batting average of 48 with 8 hundreds, not bad for the oldest cricketer to still be playing Test cricket, and a slap in the face for those who believe that age and not quality should determine selection.
• Tendulkar’s average during this time has been a staggering 62, 7 above his career average, also with 8 centuries, 2 of which were doubles. No surprises there, but then there are those who seem to think that Rohit Sharma is the next Tendulkar. All I can say is … huh?!?
• The much maligned Laxman in this time has an average of 49 (also, as with Sachin, higher than his career average, in spite of averaging just 17 in this series), with 3 hundreds. But what has been more important are the match-winning innings he has played, not all of which have translated into centuries: at Galle against Sri Lanka; at Durban against South Africa; and in Mohali and Bangalore against Australia, in tight 4th innings chases (with Mohali, of course, being a historic knock).
• Kohli, the only youngster who looks worth his salt, has only played Test cricket since June 2011, in which time he averages 27. There is an opinion piece on cricinfo that says that Kohli’s success shows the importance of playing youth over the seniors. The least successful of the seniors has an average that is over 20 runs an innings higher than Kohli’s – so what exactly are we meaning by success here? Of course, Kohli is an investment for the future, we have to be patient with him, and so on – I buy all of that, but let’s face it, so far he hasn’t exactly set the world on fire. (At a similar stage in their careers: Dravid’s average was 35, Tendulkar’s, at the tender age of 17, was nearly 40, Laxman’s was similar to Kohli’s, 29, and Ganguly’s was already 42. None of them had been a regular member of the limited overs side prior to making their Test debut for three years, as Kohli has). There is no point even asking about Raina and Yuvraj – the less said about them, the better.
• And last but not least, our great captain has an average, in this period, of 33. Take Bangladesh out of that equation, and the average slips to 28.

How, then, is Laxman the cause of our failure? Or Dravid, or Tendulkar? And not Gambhir, or Sehwag, or Dhoni?

In terms of actual performance, then, the three people who should really be under the cosh (if we grant that Kohli, at an early stage of his career, should be given a longer rope), are Sehwag, Gambhir and Dhoni, not Dravid, Tendulkar or Laxman. It is not the seniors who have failed us, but the middle generation. That is the generation that should have been leading the side now – Sehwag, Gambhir, Dhoni, Zaheer and Harbhajan. Of those five, over the past two years, only Zak has stepped up to the plate and done the job required of him. But only Harbhajan has been dropped.

At one level, it is tricky to think of dropping Gambhir, Sehwag or Dhoni. For the two years before his long slump started, after all, Gambhir was the bedrock of India’s top order, scoring 8 hundreds in 10 Tests, including 4 in consecutive Tests, against the best attacks in the world (though not in England or Australia). And even now, he exudes an aura of intensity and commitment; in many peoples’ reckoning (including my own), he would have been the man to succeed Dhoni as captain. Dhoni of course had the myth of Captain Cool behind him – a myth that now stands thoroughly exposed, as over the past 7 Tests abroad he has looked more like Captain Clueless, without ever having the Test match batting credentials to make him an automatic selection at no. 7 on batting ability alone. Sehwag is the trickiest of the lot, because there is no question that he is a genius, and the glimpses of that genius shine through even in bad patches – such as the 200 in 44 overs in a one-day game, after he had spent the previous 6 months averaging 12 in the shorter format.

But the fact remains that – yes, even in the case of Gambhir, whom I have always admired and supported – the performances just don’t stand scrutiny. In Dhoni’s case, I just don’t think he is a good enough Test match batsman, keeper or captain to justify being retained any longer in the longer form. (He himself has suggested that he will step down from Tests at the end of 2013. Why wait so long? If we really are so obsessed about “building for the future”, why not groom a wicket-keeper straight away so that he can have a couple of years of Test cricket at home before having to tour South Africa, England and Australia in 2014-15?). In Gambhir’s and Sehwag’s cases, the ability is there, a longer rope is justified, but for a team whose success depends so much on its opening pair, the collective failure of both openers over such an extended period of time is just untenable. Over the past 6 months (and that includes the home series against a mediocre West Indies side), our opening partnership has averaged less than 15. That is a truly damning figure.

There are two things that have protected the image of Gambhir, Sehwag and Dhoni – and none of them have to do with their Test match ability or performance. The first is that they have continued to perform in limited overs games. Dhoni has always been an exceptional limited overs batsman, and the fact that he could barely score a run in the Tests in England, but then followed it up with a batting run in the one-day games when he wasn’t dismissed even once, says it all. I laughed when Ravi Shastri said in commentary in Australia that Dhoni is “out-of-form”. This is not lack of form – it is lack of ability in the longer form of the game, covered up by performances in the shorter form. Sehwag hasn’t performed consistently in limited overs, but then he produces that occasional innings that defies logic – such as the 175 in the World Cup opener, or the 219 against the West Indies – so the belief that, on his day, anything is possible, remains. On his day, it is true that anything is possible. The problem is that his day is coming less and less often, and, on sporting wickets, is hardly coming at all. Even Gambhir, who has shown himself to be a Test batsman of ability, has continued to score heavily in one-day games even while continuing to fail in Tests.

The second is that – other than Tendulkar – these three are the most marketable cricketers in India today. In between overs in games where India is performing abjectly, these three show up selling products; that last ball six to seal the World Cup from Dhoni is shown again and again. We are living in an age where the quality of a cricketer is determined by the media and advertising more than by facts and performance – and nowhere more so than in India. Laxman doesn’t show up in ads anymore; Laxman cannot redeem himself in limited overs cricket. (And indeed, Laxman doesn’t show up in ads because he doesn’t play limited overs cricket – once he was dropped from the Indian one-day side in 2003, the advertising endorsements also ended). Ergo, Laxman is dispensable, while Gambhir, Sehwag and Dhoni are not. Facts or performance have nothing to do with it.

I don’t mind giving some people a longer rope than others, and I think that Gambhir and Sehwag, for different reasons, have deserved the ropes they have gotten. (Gambhir because of his attitude and sheer bloody-mindedness, and his consistency when at his best; Sehwag for his genius, the psychological impact he can have on an opposition, and for the fact that he is one of India’s two match-winners in Test cricket – the other being Laxman. Sehwag wins us matches from the front, Laxman wins them with his back-to-the-wall; but both have won us more games than Dravid, whose efforts have tended to be match-saving or critically supporting, but who has been responsible for some of our more famous wins, such as Adelaide, Rawalpindi and Kingston (twice), or Tendulkar, who in spite of his monumental individual records has still contributed less in the really critical games than Laxman has). But the openers’ prolonged run drought must put them under the scanner, not just because of their individual failings, but because of how it has contributed to the team’s overall failure. It is clear that for India’s batting to click, especially abroad and against good attacks, getting a start has been critical. Our initial competitiveness abroad was built on finally getting an opening pair that could see off the new ball in the early 2000s (whether Sehwag and Bangar, or Sehwag and Chopra); our slump in the mid-2000s coincided with the musical chairs being played with openers as Chopra was unfairly jettisoned, followed by Sehwag’s complete loss of form and confidence; our series win in England was on the back of a successful combination between Wasim Jaffer and Dinesh Karthik, the latter being the highest scorer in that series; and our actual rise to the top has been because of Gambhir and Sehwag playing at the peak of their games between 2008 and 2010. The equally dramatic fall has coincided, equally, with the fall in performance of these two.

None of this is going to be addressed by dropping Laxman. However good a batsman Rohit Sharma may or may not be (and I for one am dubious that he has the technique to do well on fast bouncy tracks abroad, since pretty much all of his success has come in the shorter forms of the game), he is not going to give India 400+ scores if the openers aren’t doing their jobs.

Hence, it is essential, if we are thinking about changes in personnel, to start at the top in two senses. First, we need to hold the leadership accountable, and remove the captain, coach and vice-captain from their positions of leadership. Sehwag was never going to be the right choice to succeed Dhoni as captain anyway; he has shown himself to be an ordinary captain, whether in the IPL (where the Delhi Daredevils, after four editions, have been the poorest aggregate performers, in spite of consistently having amongst the strongest line-ups on paper), or on the occasions he has captained India (most spectacularly in Napier, when he seemed completely bereft of ideas and would have lost us the game had it not been for Gambhir’s 7-hour marathon to save it).

And second, we need to start at the top in terms of trying out a new opening pair in Tests. The irony is, we do have openers who are good enough to play international cricket. Neither Abhinav Mukund nor Ajinkya Rahane are finished products yet, but if we are talking about “building for the future”, then both are thoroughly worthwhile investments. It is worth giving them a chance in the home series against England and Australia this coming year. Gambhir, I think, values the India cap dearly, and he is young enough to have another shot at it; but he needs to be made to go back to domestic cricket and earn it the hard way, not depend on strong limited overs performances to keep him in the Test side. Whether Sehwag has the fire in the belly to do that anymore remains an open question – he is, after all, 33, at which age Ganguly was already being hounded out of international cricket, and even Tendulkar was being written off. (Remember the “Endulkar” signs around Indian grounds in 2006? And how he was even being booed on his home ground in Bombay? If we had decided to “build for the future” and listen to the pundits who were calling for his head then, we would have missed 5 of the most glorious years of batsmanship in the history of Test cricket, anywhere). But if Sehwag doesn’t have the fire to fight for his spot, then he shouldn’t be playing Test cricket for India. Meanwhile, Dinesh Karthik, after a poor domestic season in 2010-11, has started making runs for Tamilnadu in abundance. He is a much better Test batsman than Dhoni technically, and has shown this in trying conditions abroad, without ever having the security of an extended run in the side. (As a keeper, he was always a stand-in keeper for Dhoni, knowing that however well he played, he would be dropped on Dhoni’s return. But if he is given the security of an extended run, he has a lot to offer India still. If we do stick to 6 frontline batsmen, he is a far better Test no. 7 in all conditions than Dhoni. And he allows us the option of playing 5 bowlers as well, because of his ability to double up as an opening batsman).

Laxman’s role in this transition

Simply as a batsman, therefore, I think Laxman needs to be retained in the side. This is because I think, if we look over the past two years, he has been amongst the most important batsmen in the side, playing critical, match-winning roles for us at crucial junctures. Temperamentally as well, he has a very important role to play in the team, because he is clearly someone who maintains the equilibrium of the dressing room, someone whom everyone looks up to, trusts, and respects. And in any case, dropping him is not going to solve our problems, even if Rohit Sharma, as an individual, proves good enough for Test cricket (something that is possible, but which I don’t think is at all a given), because unless we get a good captain who can lead from the front, and good openers who can give us starts, we are going to keep losing abroad, and will quite likely start losing at home as well against good teams. (Teams like England and Australia will not let us off the hook if we are 85 for 6, as we were against the West Indies in Delhi).

But I think Laxman has an even bigger role to play, because I think the crisis we face is as big as the one that we faced at the end of Dravid’s captaincy. Then, of course, there was also a crisis of trust, since Greg Chappell’s tenure as coach had damaged the dressing room environment. But the “rebuilding” that has to happen now has to be around building new leadership. If Gambhir was sure of his place in the side, there would have been no questions asked, he could have taken over the reins and would have had the authority to do so. But if Gambhir’s place is also in question, then there is a real question mark as to who can succeed Dhoni as captain.

I think Virat Kohli is a future India captain, and I actually think the time has come for him to take over the reins in limited overs cricket. He has been playing international cricket for three-and-a-half years now, which is longer than Dhoni was playing for India when he was made captain for the T20 World Cup. And his position in the side, as one of the most prolific one-day batsmen in the world, is secure in that format. But while I see a future for Kohli as a Test batsman, he clearly isn’t secure enough as a Test batsman to be entrusted with the leadership yet. I think his performance under fire at Perth was a turning point, and I think we are going to see a lot of good things from him in Test cricket going forward. But he needs a year leading the one-day side, and further establishing himself in the Test middle order, before he is made captain in both formats.

A critical part of the transition between Dravid’s captaincy and Dhoni’s was the role played by Kumble. He helped knit the team back together, he led with pride and passion, and even though he himself knew that his role at the helm would be a short-term one, he prepared the ground for Dhoni to take over by handing him a team that had gotten over the scars of the Chappell era and that was starting to believe in itself again. As a bowler, Kumble was still good enough to be in the playing 11 in that year when he led the side, but there was no question that his best days were already behind him. Nonetheless, the role that he played that year was integral to Indian cricket finding its feet again.

Laxman can play that role now. He has always been a good captain, tactically and in terms of supporting his players, and if India is to transition smoothly from the Dhoni era to the Kohli era (as I think it must), then Laxman has a big role to play in facilitating that transition. After all he has achieved for India, the very least he deserves is to exit on his own terms. But I see a much larger role for him than that, and it is not based in charity. It is based on the value he brings to the side, as a player, a leader, and a mentor. Rather than hound him out, why not make use of him, and value him for the great player that he is, for a change? It may only be for a few months, but a Laxman captaincy through the 2012-13 season could help us erase the scars of the past 6 months and build a platform upon which we can be competitive again on the world stage in Tests. I have no hope that this will happen, but as an Indian cricket lover, I can only write, and hope that the few people who read this at least will be convinced of the value that Laxman can still bring to Indian cricket.

Thoughts before Perth

While all the pundits are writing India off and looking forward to another 4-0 whitewash, I am going to stick my neck out and say that we have a 40-60 chance of coming back and leveling the series. This is for two reasons. First, both the WACA (in spite of its speed and bounce) and the Adelaide Oval have less lateral movement than Melbourne and Sydney, which should suit our batsmen, who were showing some signs of form in the second innings at the SCG. And second: I still believe that, unlike England, Australia is a flawed team. Their top order is vulnerable, as are Ponting and Clarke early in their innings. And if our batting can come into some form, then Australia’s inexperienced attack, now without James Pattinson, will have to show what their Plan B is. A comeback won’t be easy, but it is possible.

What is necessary, however, is some smart thinking, and that has been in seriously short supply. In England, we were completely outplayed. Here, we have simply been outthought. Dhoni’s captaincy has been a disaster, especially when contrasted to Michael Clarke’s, and Duncan Fletcher seems intent on getting himself a world record three whitewashes, something not even a Bangladesh coach has managed. But none of our so-called cricket pundits and experts seems to have much by way of ideas either.

Indeed, the only idea I have seen floating around is to bring Rohit Sharma in, as if he is some sort of messiah, and the only debate has been whether it should be at the expense of Kohli, Laxman or Dravid. Those who say one of the latter two should go – and this includes many of our former players, not a single one of whom has achieved half as much as either of these have for India – claim that this is to “build for the future”. That is such a ridiculous cliché. What is this “future” we are building for? The biggest series in the world for us is Australia in Australia. And the Border-Gavaskar Trophy can still be retained. The future is now. It’s one thing if Kohli offers us a better chance of winning in Perth than Dravid or Laxman, but he doesn’t. I think he will be an excellent Test batsman one day, but this weekend shouldn’t be the time we punt on him becoming so.

But more than that, I don’t think that Rohit is the answer to our problems. Sure, he’s a talented bat. But that talent has primarily been on display in limited overs cricket, and generally on flat tracks. The one time he was confronted with a barrage of short-pitched bowling was in the T20 World Cup in England, and he looked woefully inadequate, as bad as Suresh Raina. (And that’s saying something). How is someone who cannot play short-pitched bowling in limited overs cricket going to succeed in a Test debut at the fastest and bounciest ground in the world? The one thing Rohit had coming into this series was form. But it is now 3 weeks since he played in a match situation, and form is an ephemeral thing. The runs that he made back in November in one-days against the West Indies count for nothing in telling us what he can or cannot do against the Aussies at Perth.

Rather than simply say Jai Shri Ram and throw Rohit to the wolves, an intelligent response would be to analyze what our problems are and see how we can counter them. The two biggest problems, alas, can’t be fixed before Perth. One is Dhoni. I think his captaincy has to end, but it’s not going to end tomorrow, so unfortunately we are stuck with him for now. And the second is the refusal to play five bowlers, which is always, in any condition, going to be our best bet for winning matches. But Dhoni is unwilling to do that when our batsman are in form, so he’s not going to do so now. So the following thoughts are based on a realistic assessment of what we can and should do at Perth.

Here are our problems:

- Our openers are not giving us a start. On wickets abroad, this is critical, and we need our middle order to be cushioned against the new ball. All our strong performances abroad, whether from 2008-10 when Gambhir and Sehwag were in peak form, or in 2003-4 when Aakash Chopra provided such a wonderful foil for Viru, have been based around strong starts. Gambhir ran into some form in Sydney, but Viru’s methods are not working on these pitches against the lines and lengths the Aussies are bowling. Yet Viru remains, along with Laxman, one of the two batsmen most likely to actually win us matches. (They have done so far more often than Dravid or Tendulkar). So this is something we need to figure out, especially since one cannot ask Viru to change his style of play.

- Dravid is looking scratchy at 3. Temperamentally, he remains the one batsman capable of gritting it out even when not looking pretty. But in this sort of form, with a flimsy opening pair ahead of him, he is not a wall. This means that, between Sehwag’s unsuccessful methods and Dravid’s scratchy form, our middle order risks getting exposed way too soon.

- We don’t have a lower middle order that can marshal the tail. Dhoni of course is a disaster, but Kohli doesn’t have the experience either. And Rohit can’t be expected to. This means that we are in a situation where the first 2 or 3 wickets are always waiting to happen, and once we are 4-down, we are effectively all out, in spite of Ashwin’s useful batting down the order. Any scores of substance depend entirely on a Dravid - Tendulkar or a Tendulkar – Laxman partnership. And indeed, our two 200+ scores have been built solely on the basis of one or the other. When such a partnership doesn’t happen, we don’t get 200.

- Ashwin has disappointed with the ball. He is a good, talented spinner. But he is still learning how to bowl in Australia. In Aussie conditions, it is very important for the spinner to be able to take on the roll of stock bowler. But Ashwin is of the mindset where he is trying to get a wicket with every ball. That is actually a T20 mentality, and it is hampering him, because in the process he ends up doing too much and losing consistency. Being a stock bowler doesn’t mean bowling defensively. On the contrary, it means tossing the ball up consistently, slowing it down, and maintaining good lines just outside off-stump. He needs to be the bowler the captain can turn to in order to bowl long spells, so that the quicks can bowl in short bursts in the middle overs at the Aussie middle order.

In terms of solutions, Ashwin is the easiest: I would persist with him at Perth, which means we go into the side with the same bowling unit as Sydney. This is not because he is a better batsman than Pragyan Ojha: if you are playing only 4 bowlers, then you have to be sure they are the four best available, and batting abilities cannot cloud the decision. It is because I think that, if he has learned his lessons from Sydney, then he can actually be a huge factor for us in Perth. With his height, if he can keep it consistent and keep tossing it up, he will get bounce on this wicket. And that will make him a very difficult customer to face. I see him potentially being a big factor in this Test match.

In terms of the batting line-up, I see the need for only one change in personnel, but a few changes in strategy. Kohli has to go. But I would replace him, not with Rohit, but with his Bombay teammate Ajinkya Rahane.

I have taken issue with Rahane’s selection for this tour because he has hardly played any cricket over the past couple of months, and I felt Abhinav Mukund would have been the better bet on form. (This lack of cricket is an indication of the poor player management that bedevils our system. He has basically spent the entire domestic season carrying drinks for the national team. This would never have happened in England, where players who are on the bench are released to play domestic cricket if they are not going to play. For Rahane to sit on the bench through the ODIs against the West Indies was particularly egregious, since he ended up getting a single meaningless hit at the end of the series. If the selectors knew he was part of their plans for Australia – and they did, since the team had been selected by then – he should have been playing 4-day cricket for Bombay instead. Someone like Robin Uthappa could have carried the drinks just as proficiently).

However, I do have great belief in Rahane’s talent and ability. He does have some weaknesses around off-stump, and can push at deliveries that could be left alone – a deficiency shared by Mukund and many Indians, a function of growing up on Indian tracks, and something one can grow out of. But I was extremely impressed by the technique he showed against quick bowling in England. Simply put, man for man, I have more faith in Rahane’s ability to handle quick, short pitched bowling on a bouncy track than I do Rohit’s.

But it is not just in terms of ability that Rahane scores over Rohit. It is also in terms of the balance he lends to the side, because this would allow a necessary rejigging of the batting order. I would have Rahane open with Gambhir, move Viru down to 3, Dravid to 5 and Laxman to 6. I think this would protect both Viru and Dravid.

Rahane’s job should be simple – he should be asked to do what Akaash Chopra did in 2003-4, which is to just see off the first 15 overs. Anything above that is a bonus. I don’t care if he just makes 20, and if the score is 40 when the 1st wicket falls. If Viru can walk in after the first drinks break, and if the Aussie new ball bowlers have been denied an early breakthrough, then it will be an entirely different ball game.

Viru changed Test batsmanship by inverting the logic that the opener has to accumulate, so that the middle order can blaze away. But that inversion worked in an era where new ball bowlers tended to be, bar the odd exception, in the McGrath / Pollock seam bowler mold. Against genuinely quick swing bowlers who pitch the ball up, we need to revert to the strategy of having openers who can see off the new ball, so that the middle order can attack. Because against such a swing-oriented attack, seeing off the first hour is absolutely key, and can make the difference between a score of 175 and 450.

If Rohit was to play, then basically all the structural problems that have beset us so far will still be facing us. Viru will be a walking wicket at the top of the order; a struggling Dravid will have little cover; and Tendulkar is likely to be walking in to bat in the first hour of play. Australia will not be challenged in their thinking in the least, and can stick to the plans that have worked so well for them. All we will be doing is hoping against hope that Rohit, miraculously, and in defiance of his well-known weakness against the short ball, will somehow be our savior. Champion teams are not built by waiting for such acts of providence.

On the other hand, if Rahane comes in at the top of the order, we can adopt a different approach, and force the Aussies to think differently. There also ends up being a structure to the batting order, which each person in the side having a specific role to play, and the conditions in which he is most likely to realize that role.

So: in such a situation, we would have Rahane and Gambhir at the top of the order to see off the new ball. With the expectation, at least, from Rahane that he negotiates the first hour, from Gambhir that tries to play through a session and get 40-50. So that Viru would walk in against a first or second change bowler, and Sachin not before the afternoon (if we bat first). This would allow Viru and Sachin to play their natural, attacking games, with some kind of a foundation behind them. In case that doesn’t work out and there is still a collapse, there will still be the experience of Dravid and Laxman to bail the team out. If it does work out, then Dravid and Laxman, at 5 and 6, remain the two best players in the side to bat with the tail and turn a good position into an excellent one. Dhoni’s role would be as Australia’s 12th man, since he isn’t doing anything useful for the Indian cause. (His only consolation is that he is a better keeper than his Aussie counterpart, which shows what an embarrassment Haddin is behind the stumps). And then there would be a useful bowling quartet, all of whom will get purchase and enjoy bowling at Perth.

With a little thought, a little intelligence, and a little creativity, we have the ability to push back in this series. We have only to think back to Headingley 2002, which in my mind was the greatest Test win by an Indian team, because we played a comprehensive game to outplay a strong opposition, in conditions that were far more favorable to England than to us, simply through intelligent and creative leadership. (Ganguly, in that game, rejected conventional wisdom, went in with two spinners on a green top because they were our two best bowlers, and moved Viru up to open as an attacking move, not as a move of desperation as is usually the case. The rest is history). Calcutta 2001 was more stirring, but that was a game won by superhuman individual performances. If we sit and wait for those, then against a strong bowling attack led by an imaginative captain, we don’t stand a chance. Playing Rohit, as everyone is advocating, speaks to the sit-back-try-someone-hope-for-the-best-maybe-he’ll-click approach. If our approach is based on thought, and not just hope and prayer, then the Border-Gavaskar Trophy could yet remain in our hands.

India team for tri-series

I am still too depressed from Sydney to write a post-mortem (which really would be a post-mortem for Indian Test cricket, in a true sense). So I thought I would distract myself by looking ahead to the ODIs. It is clear that this is where the priorities of our administrators and our captain lie in any case. So below is my team for this. It will be full of controversial selections, selections that I think are important, but that won’t be heeded.

First – I think it is time for Dhoni’s captaincy to end. This will not happen, but it must. I am amazed that everyone is baying for the blood of a range of other scapegoats – it was Gambhir until he saved himself with 80, or Kohli, or Laxman, who is still far better than any of the young pretenders to his place – but no one is questioning Dhoni, who has been completely inadequate with the bat and as captain. Quite simply, he was never an exceptional keeper; he was never a good enough batsman to play Tests successfully on bowler-friendly conditions abroad. (A total of two half-centuries in 13 Tests in England and Australia is scathing indictment of this fact. Even our bowling all-rounders such as Ravichandran Ashwin or Irfan Pathan could do better than that, so to have such an inadequate batsman play at 7 is a disaster). What left him unscathed was the myth of his wonderful captaincy. That myth now stands thoroughly exposed. If he is not good enough to be part of a Test XI in conditions abroad, then he shouldn’t be captaining India. In any case, he has achieved all that he can hope to achieve in limited overs cricket with World Cup wins in 50 and 20 over formats, and has himself said that it is not certain he will be around for the 2015 World Cup. (Of course, he knows he will be shown up in a World Cup in Australian conditions). So the time to build for the future in terms of team leadership is now. Dhoni has given Indian cricket whatever he can as captain, and his continuation at the helm is the surest ticket to a continued downward slide.

Dhoni still remains a fine limited overs batsman, so he would remain in my team. And like Ricky Ponting, he should have the humility to be in the team as an ordinary player. If he doesn’t, I have no problems with him returning to Ranchi and riding his motorcycles. And his replacement should, quite obviously, be Gautam Gambhir, who is the person best-suited to be India’s long-term captain. He is a better captain than Sehwag, and Sehwag is unlikely to be playing when the 2015 World Cup rolls around, at which time he will be 37. I think the only reason Viru was made vice-captain was so that Dhoni wouldn’t be threatened by someone, like Gambhir, who could replace him as captain in the long-term.

In terms of the batting line-up, I think there are really only two or three tricky questions. The first is – should Tendulkar still be playing ODIs? Personally, I think it would have been wonderful if he had just retired from all limited overs after the World Cup win. He is not going to be around for the next World Cup, and it would have been a fitting occasion to quit. But I do think he should play this tournament. This is partly because he is the only batsman who has looked equal to the task of playing Down Under in this series. But it is mainly because I don’t expect him to get to this 100th 100 in the Tests, and would welcome any opportunity for him to get this utterly over-hyped and meaningless milestone out of the way so that he can get back to just playing at his best in Tests again.

The second is whether Yuvraj Singh should be selected. He has said that he is available, and in India the only thing that merits selection of a star player is his say-so. But as one can see for the Aussies, getting into the side means actually proving match-fitness, and that is I think a basic criterion that should be imposed for our players as well. Yuvraj has barely played any cricket since the World Cup. (In the couple of Tests he played against the West Indies, he looked completely inadequate). I don’t care if he was man-of-the-series in the World Cup: if he wants to play for India, he needs to show that he is fit enough to play by actually playing domestic cricket. Our one-day middle order is quite healthy as it is, with Virat Kohli continuing to excel, Rohit Sharma coming into his own, and Manoj Tiwary getting into the act with a 100 against the West Indies. So there is no place for Yuvraj in my team. Indeed, I see Virat Kohli as a leader in the making, and would have him be Gambhir’s deputy.

This means a top 6 of Sehwag, Tendulkar, Gambhir, Kohli, Rohit and Dhoni. I would select Manoj Tiwary ahead of Suresh Raina, who in my mind remains India’s most overrated cricketer. Raina didn’t even make much of a mark at home, in one-days, against the West Indies, in a series that met all three of his criteria for success (limited overs, flat tracks, weak opposition). Tiwary has been piling on the runs in domestic cricket in obscurity for years; technically, he has the ability to be not just a successful one-day batsman, but part of a future Test middle-order; and it is high time he is given a proper run. Raina’s continued inclusion will otherwise be at the expense of a genuinely promising player, someone whom Sourav Ganguly, the best judge of talent in India, once called “the future of Indian cricket”.

Ravindra Jadeja and Ravi Ashwin select themselves as the two spinners. In the seam department, I use the same principle for Praveen Kumar and Munaf Patel as I do for Yuvraj: even if they are fit (and there is no indication that they are), then need to be match-fit before they can be selected. So, neither of them will be in my team. Zaheer and Ishant of course select themselves to lead the attack. For me, the third seamer, without question, should be Irfan Pathan. He should have been in Australia already for the Tests, but for the ODI’s, with his additional batting capabilities, his selection should be a no-brainer. (I cannot imagine why he is being excluded, it cannot be for cricketing reasons). A playing 11 with Jadeja at 7, Ashwin at 8, and Irfan at 9 will be one with incredible batting depth; but just as a bowler, Irfan is good enough to be in India’s playing 11, especially given Australian weakness against quality swing bowling.

This only leaves the reserves. I have already indicated Tiwary as one, Umesh Yadav should obviously be another. (Irfan pushes ahead of him in the 11 because of his far superior batting). So this leaves two more spots, one for a batsman and one for a bowler. And here, I would bring in two cricketers from outside the current fold.

I think the batsman should be someone who can also keep wickets, because in a long tri-series played far away one cannot count on one keeper’s fitness. Parthiv Patel has been given enough chances and found wanting. So I would go back to someone who last played for India four years ago, but who has since then improved greatly on his batting and fitness while developing more than adequate keeping skills: Robin Uthappa. Uthappa is a wonderfully versatile player to have on the bench, someone who can be a floater in the order and therefore come in as a top order replacement, a lower middle order replacement, and be a back-up keeper. It is high time he is given another run.

My back-up seam bowler will also be from outside the fold. I think Vinay Kumar is a game tryer and a useful one-day bowler, but I just don’t think that his military medium pace is going to threaten Australia’s batsmen. What we need, again, is a genuine swing bowler, ideally someone who can swing it at nippy pace. Someone who has Sreesanth’s bowling style, but with brains. And the candidate there for me is Ashok Dinda, who has been in outstanding form for Bengal this year. He has had a few random chances with the team based on a strong IPL performance in 2008, but he is a much better bowler now than he was then. He is 27, the age when fast bowlers enter their peak, and is also someone who can become a part of India’s Test options. He is a far better bowler than either Vinay or Mithun, and should be part of the team.

Depressed rants on the Tests will follow in due course, but for now, my ODI team:

1. Virendra Sehwag
2. Sachin Tendulkar
3. Gautam Gambhir ©
4. Virat Kohli (V)
5. Rohit Sharma
6. Mahendra Dhoni (W)
7. Ravindra Jadeja
8. Ravichandran Ashwin
9. Irfan Pathan
10. Zaheer Khan
11. Ishant Sharma

Reserves:

12. Manoj Tiwary
13. Robin Uthappa (W)
14. Umesh Yadav
15. Ashok Dinda

Melbourne post-mortem and Sydney preview (or: The difference between Dhoni and Dravid)

While I am unhappy, as any Indian fan would be, at the outcome of the Melbourne Test, all I can say is: I told you so. Pretty much everything in that game panned out as I had predicted. The only encouraging aspect was that the Indian bowling punched well above its weight in spite of being just a four-man attack, with young Umesh Yadav being particularly impressive. (As someone who had written him off, I happily stand corrected). India’s over-hyped batting line-up showed its weaknesses against the moving ball in conditions abroad. Australia showed tremendous vulnerability in their own batting, but also showed off a young bowling attack that has the potential to match England’s in the years to come. Our bowling showed how much more effective it is overall when Zaheer Khan is leading the attack. And Virat Kohli’s place could have been much better taken by an extra bowler. However well our bowlers bowled, the fact remains that Australia’s weak batting line-up made more runs against our bowlers than our supposedly strong line-up made against theirs. Having Pragyan Ojha’s controlled spin to fall back on as an extra option would have made it harder for the Aussies to make those crucial extra runs at critical moments. On the whole, however, the Melbourne Test proved, first of all, just what a terrible ground Melbourne is for India, as we kept intact our recent record (now going back two decades, so really not that recent) of losing there by more than 100 runs. And secondly, that Australia is, if not unarguably a better side than India, than certainly the more likely side to win this series in their home conditions.

The question is, can we come back in Sydney? Our performances over the past few years suggest that we can, since we have typically started slowly on tours but have shown the mental resilience to fight back from deficits. This is in contrast to Australia, who in recent times have shown great inconsistency, and an inability to string together successively strong performances. Also, while it is more than 30 years since India has won a Test at Sydney, there is no question that it is a happier hunting ground for our batsmen – Tendulkar and Laxman in particular – than Melbourne. So, all the indications are that India is far from out of this series, yet.

I do think we can win in Sydney, but there are a couple of things that give me pause. The first, of course, are the memories of the summer in England. There, we didn’t see a mentally resilient team, but one that slid from bad to worse. Of course, England is a terrific side, India had more injuries on that tour, and we were mentally exhausted and definitely not as well prepared as we are for this tour. England’s batting line-up is far more formidable than Australia’s, and our bowling attack on this tour is much stronger than the one that went to England in the summer. Nonetheless, the summer did expose certain structural deficiencies in the Indian side, and nothing has been done to address them. We have papered over them through a meaningless autumn that has seen one-day wins at home, and a Test series win also at home against a West Indies side that, without Chris Gayle, is just marginally better than Bangladesh. And those deficiencies were exposed ruthlessly by the Aussies at Melbourne. Since those deficiencies haven’t gone away in three days, our only chance of winning is to expose Aussie weaknesses more strongly than they expose ours.

There are two major deficiencies here – one more structural and fundamental, and the second having to do with what I believe is the biggest weak link in the Indian side. Let me address each in turn.

The structural, fundamental deficiency is that we do not play top quality swing bowling well. This is not to say that we are flat-track bullies: after all, very few batsmen in the world play quality swing well, except to a considerable extent the English. This is partly because of a surfeit of limited overs cricket that has developed techniques that tend to be too flashy to deal with swing. But it is also partly because, as Sambit Bal has analyzed in an excellent recent piece in cricinfo, much of the past two decades has seen an accent on McGrath-like, hit-the-deck seam bowling, and only in the past few months has there been a sudden resurgence of swing bowling worldwide. (The exceptions, in the 1990s, were of course the Pakistanis, and no one in the world really had the measure of Wasim and Waqar through that decade). Even two years ago, the only genuinely quick swing bowler who, through a combination of pace and movement in the air could get wickets anywhere in the world, was Dale Steyn. (Anderson wasn’t that quick and needed help off the wicket; Zaheer was effective because he could switch from conventional to reverse swing and thereby make use of dry, dusty conditions as well as seaming ones). Now, most teams seem to have a couple such bowlers. Even bowlers who used to be hit-the-deck enforcers are now pitching it up and getting it to swing. Stuart Broad this summer, and Peter Siddle in recent times, are two examples.

Also, the nature of swing bowling has changed. Earlier – except for the Pakistanis, who would bowl fast and straight and move it about – the idea of swing was that it was a tool to get outside edges. This is why it depended so much on the nature of the wicket and conditions. And if you had good batsmen who could leave the ball, and see off the new ball, then such swing was potentially negotiable. Wicket-to-wicket swing tended to be associated for the most part with the older ball and reverse swing – which was also favored more under certain pitch and weather conditions than others. In other words, the conventional wisdom was that a McGrath-type bowler would be effective in all conditions at all times, while a swing bowler would only be so in some places some of the time. The empirical evidence for this was to be found in McGrath’s own success rate, as compared to the early record of someone like Anderson.

Indian batsmen have learned to play seam. This is why they have succeeded in the past in Australia, and even held their own in South Africa, their problems against Steyn notwithstanding. Because one outstanding swing bowler can be negotiated. It’s a different ball game, however, if one has to negotiate three outstanding swing bowlers, as we had to in England or in Melbourne. Then, even the best technique gets put under stern examination, and most have been found wanting.

This is what makes me anxious about Sydney – the question of whether our batsmen have the technique to survive what will be another searching examination by a trio of bowlers who will pitch it up, bowl straight, and swing it fast and late. The only person in the Indian batting line-up who has the technique to deal with that is Dravid. That Gambhir, Sehwag and Kohli don’t really have the technique to deal with this is obvious, though each of them (Sehwag in particular) may get runs through some combination of grit, audacity, or let-up in intensity on the part of the bowlers. What worries me more is that Laxman and Tendulkar also, in my opinion, don’t have the technique to deal with this. Laxman has a phenomenal record against Australia, but against an Australian attack that was based around seam. Now, he is suddenly confronted with an Australian attack that seems to have developed an English phenotype, and Laxman’s record against England is distinctly ordinary. A technique that is built on wrist-work rather than footwork is not one that is ideally suited to succeed against the type of bowling that was on offer in Melbourne, and that will again be on offer this week.

Sachin’s technique is better suited to this than Laxman’s, but I would go out on a limb and say that, all the hype about Sachin’s averages in Sydney notwithstanding, he too is vulnerable. This is because, at his core, Sachin is an attacking batsman. But if you attack bowling of this quality and intensity and don’t get it to back off, then sooner or later a ball is going to slip through the cracks. This is exactly what happened in Melbourne. Negotiating bowling of this quality requires the ability not just to counter-attack, but to grit it out. To play well even when not fluent or pretty. Only Dravid, in this line-up, has this ability, which is why he was head and shoulders above the rest in England. If we are to win in Sydney, it has to be on his back.

What we have going for us, as mentioned earlier, is the fact that our bowling is stronger than it was this summer, and Australia’s batting is weaker than England’s. So potentially, a Dravid 100 could be the difference between the two sides. The reason our bowlers could not get through the Aussies as quickly as they could get through us brings me to the second weakness in this side. Indeed, the biggest weakness in the side: M.S. Dhoni.

Quite simply, Dhoni’s captaincy has been amongst the worst I have seen in the three decades that I have followed cricket. His principle of spreading the field the minute the 6th wicket falls is utterly inexplicable. Commentators are hoping that he would have learned his lesson in Melbourne – but given that he did this throughout the summer and didn’t learn his lesson then, I don’t see that he would have learned it now. Is he saying that the same fields and tactics that are good enough to dismiss Ponting, Clarke and Hussey are insufficient to dismiss an out-of-form Brad Haddin, or Siddle or Pattinson? It is ludicrous. And then he has the gall to gripe about the bowlers’ inability to get through the tail! As Ian Chappell said, Dhoni’s captaincy on the 4th morning was an object lesson in how to lose a Test match. My only correction would be to replace “object” with “abject”. It was a disgrace. Yet, other than Chappell, not a single commentator has called him out on this, except for some polite talk on cricinfo about how more attacking fields would have been better.

I think it is time for Dhoni’s Test captaincy to come to an end. If, somehow, we eke out a creditable performance in Australia, then Dhoni himself should step down, saying that he has achieved whatever anyone could hope to achieve, that he has had his four years at the helm, that it is time to look forward. If we end up losing big, which is quite possible, he needs to be axed.

A good captain has at least one of three elements (great captains usually have at least two). He could be a good strategist; he could be a good man-manager; or he could lead by example. Dhoni has never been a good strategist. In his very early days, in the 2007 T20 World Cup or when he stood in for Kumble in the 2008 home series against Australia, he would at least take gambles – largely, I think, because he had nothing to lose. Since he has become a full-time captain, however, he has been an extremely conservative captain. This reflects in his refusal to even consider a five-bowler attack, even though batting is supposed to be our strong suit; but also in his field placings. This conservatism works if the batting clicks and we have runs on the board, as pressure then can make defensive tactics seem attacking. But when the batting gets exposed, as it was in England and in Melbourne, the true horrors of such a conservative approach become evident. Forget Ganguly, who was indisputably a better tactician than Dhoni. Even the much-maligned Dravid was. (It was unfortunate that Dravid’s tenure as captain was marred by Greg Chappell’s as coach, and also unfortunate that the only thing he will be remembered for as captain will be the 2007 World Cup, just as Dhoni will only be remembered by the 2011 Cup. But the fact remains that Dravid won us a series in England 1-0, and Dhoni lost us one 0-4. That, to me, is a far more significant statistic than a World Cup).

Dhoni’s strength is in man-management; and when he took over the side, this was an important skill to have, given the mistrust that Chappell’s tenure as coach had engendered. But now, this is basically a happy, mutually supportive dressing-room, and one doesn’t need a captain who can bring calm and keep people happy – we need a captain who can think of ways to win Test matches. (One is also forced to wonder how much of that successful man-management had to do with Gary Kirsten, who was so instrumental in bringing out the best from the likes of Gambhir and Sehwag, rather than Dhoni).

Even poor tacticians however can lead from the front if they lead by example; Ricky Ponting is the classic recent example. There is no question, in this regard, that Dhoni is an exemplary limited-overs captain, because there are few batsmen in the world who are as good in the shorter form as he is. But in Test matches, he is just not good enough. He was always a mediocre keeper; and it is quite clear, given his record in England, South Africa and Australia, that he is a textbook definition, as a batsman, of a flat-track bully. Indeed, he is no more a Test batsman than Yuvraj Singh or Suresh Raina. This is why, in my opinion, he refuses to play 5 bowlers – because he knows that there is no way he is good enough to bat at 6 in a Test line-up. (Indeed, it was quite clear in Melbourne that James Pattinson is a better Test match batsman in these conditions than Dhoni is. This is not a question of form – just in terms of basic technique and ability on wickets that have some juice in them, Dhoni doesn’t cut it). His poor batting has for the most part been covered by the successes of those who have come before him; but when the top and middle-order struggles, having a number 7 who can be depended upon becomes important, and Dhoni is a big cipher in this regard. Forget Ashwin, Ishant Sharma inspires more confidence with the bat than Dhoni does. One could forgive the ordinary keeping and the ordinary batting as long as the myth of Dhoni’s captaincy endured. But if that myth itself requires performance to hold up, then we are in a circular situation.

Quite simply, this emperor has no clothes. The tragedy is that the moral of that story was that the naked emperor was still emperor. And that is the case here. No one is seriously calling Dhoni to account, the myth and the aura and the hype are just too great, he was never taken to task for the failure in England, and he is still getting off largely scot-free here.

And he sells too many packets of soap. He is just too precious a commodity, which means that his power will not be affected by little things like failure of the field in Test matches. But if we lose this series – as we likely will – it will be his fault, as captain and as batsman. And he will remain unaccountable, will make some runs in the tri-series after that, someone else like Gautam Gambhir will be made a scapegoat, and all will be forgotten and forgiven.

I am disgusted with Dhoni, but will still tune into the Sydney Test with trepidation and anticipation. This is our best chance of a win, we cannot afford to go 2-0 down, and this is the chance for our team to stand tall and shine. But a win is going to depend on another strong performance from our bowling unit – definitely likely – and on Dravid standing tall on the burning deck like he did in England. What is different is that England had 9 batsmen who could bat as successfully as Dravid; Australia, in actual fact, has none. So Dravid + the bowlers could yet win this for us, in which case the series will be tantalizingly set up.

But if we do win, it will be in spite of our captain, not because of him.

Five reasons why Australia are favorites

The conventional wisdom says two things about the forthcoming India – Australia series. The first is that it is likely to be an engrossing series between two flawed teams. I agree. The second, heard in many quarters of the Indian media, is that Australia’s recent batting travails, combined with India’s record against the Aussies over the past couple of years, makes India the favorites to win. I disagree. These pundits and hype-masters seem to have forgotten the small fact of our own drubbing in England this summer, and the fact that the structural issues raised by that drubbing have still been largely unaddressed.

I wouldn’t rule out another 4-0 defeat, though I think it is unlikely, because England is a far better team than this Aussie side, and because I think we are mentally better prepared for this tour than we were for England. But I still think Australia are favorites, for the following four reasons.

First: Australia’s weakness is in their batting; our weakness is in our bowling. But Test matches are won by taking 20 wickets, and, quite simply, I think Australia’s attack is far more capable of taking 20 wickets than ours is. We might be able to do so occasionally, especially given Australia’s fallible batting. But series are won by doing so repeatedly.

Australia’s young attack is not as experienced as the England attack we faced this past summer, but it is still a potent and versatile one. In Pattinson, Siddle and Hilfenhaus, they have a seam attack with a genuine quick, a hard working seamer who will keep coming at the batsman with heavy balls, and a genuine swing bowler – a versatility that mirrors England’s trio of Broad, Bresnan and Anderson. In a match-up of those two attacks, it is true that Graeme Swann is superior to Nathan Lyon; but Swann didn’t have to do that much against India in the summer anyway. We’re going to have our hands full with this Aussie attack. Pattinson looks as menacing as the young Brett Lee did 12 years ago; Siddle is a far better bowler than he was when he made his debut against India in 2007-08; and by all accounts, Hilfenhaus is back in form and mentally stronger than he was last year during his Ashes drubbing at the hands of Alastair Cook. Indeed, as a genuine swing bowler, Hilfenhaus could well be the most dangerous of the three. And if any of them fails to step up to the plate, then Ryan Harris is likely to be fit and in the wings by the time the Sydney Test rolls around.

More generally: of the four teams that have claims to being the best in the world, three of them – England, South Africa and Australia – can plan to win games by taking 20 wickets. England has the best batting line-up of the three, and Australia the worst, and that is reflected in recent results and rankings, but all three have attacks that are potent enough to win games. India’s best plan to win a game is to rack up a big total and use that to pressure the Aussies, especially given the lack of form of some of their most experienced players. That’s a tactic that has won us games in the past; but it is a more reliable tactic in the sub-continent, when racking up big totals is more of a given. It is not a tactic that world champion teams need to depend upon.

And that brings me to the second reason for our vulnerability – our batting. The myth of our unassailable batting line-up is repeated ad nauseum, but the fact is that our batting failed as comprehensively in England as our bowling did. And in the one full warm up game we had here, we managed 270. That does not inspire huge amounts of confidence.

If we look at individuals, then the reputations are big, but the reality is more sobering. Gambhir and Laxman have both averaged in the low-to-mid 30s in 2011. If the series against Bangladesh is taken out, then Sehwag’s Test average over the past 18 months is merely 25. Kohli will be under huge amounts of pressure to perform on a big stage and on hard, bouncy tracks, especially with Rohit Sharma nipping at his heels. Dhoni has always been an average Test batsman, turning in an occasional strong knock but not someone you can count on the way a Gilchrist could be counted on, or even that a Matt Prior these days can be counted on. And there is no question that the hysteria over a 100th hundred has been playing on Sachin’s mind and that he has not been at his most focused or most imposing over the past few months as a consequence; and no doubt the Aussies will keep reminding him of this. This means that, once again, the success or failure of our batting is going to depend largely on Rahul Dravid. And we have seen in England how even a superlative batting performance from Dravid, if single-handed and unsupported, doesn’t count for much.

Of course, it may be that our batting will click. Maybe Sehwag’s 200 against the West Indies is the shot in the arm he needs to get back to his big scoring ways; maybe Gambhir needs just one big knock to start being Mr. Consistent again; maybe Sachin will get that bugbear 100 out of the way and be back to his very best; maybe Australia will bring out the magic in Laxman as it always has; maybe Kohli has what it takes to be Ganguly’s long-term successor at 6 and will show it. But for a team whose strong suit is supposed to be its batting, that’s an awful lot of maybes to depend upon.

The third reason why Australia are favorites is because their batting is fragile, but not weak. This is not a team with a poor batting line-up, like, for instance, the West Indies. It is a team with a line-up that has been prone to far too many surprising and sudden collapses. That is always going to keep bowling sides interested, even ordinary bowling sides like India’s. But there are some good players in that line-up. I personally think that Ponting and Hussey are nearing the end of their ropes – and they have been given longer ones than senior Aussie players usually get – but there is some serious quality amongst the younger brigade. David Warner has already shown this; Ed Cowan is a man in form; and Shaun Marsh is a serious talent, a star in the making. So while not an imposing line-up, this is also not a line-up of pushovers. Of course, compared to England’s – whose number 10 can come in and swat run-a-ball 80s as if playing in a club game – this is a very weak line-up, and if fit, our bowlers do have the quality to expose it.

The key to exposing it, of course, lies with Zaheer Khan, and if he can get through the series, then that alone will make our attack far more potent than it was in England. This is not just because of the quality that he brings himself, but because of his leadership abilities, and the way he is able to act as a mentor to the bowling unit as a whole. As we rose to no. 1 in Tests, our bowling often punched far above its weight. It was Zak’s ability to get the best out of the rest of the attack that was most responsible for that. In England, our bowling didn’t just lack quality – it was rudderless and directionless, there was no thought or intelligence in the bowling unit. Zak will lend it that. This is why I think he is the single most valuable player in the side – perhaps even more so than Dravid, who holds the batting together, or Sehwag, who can change games and demoralize oppositions on his day. And this is why the fact that he is nearing the end of his career, to me, is more worrying than the fact that Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman are nearing the ends of theirs.

The fourth reason why Australia are favorites has already just been suggested – because for us to really do well, we have to count on our key players, especially our key bowlers, remaining fit. Given that one is coming off a four-month lay-off, and a second has a dodgy ankle, and given that we will be playing four Test matches in a month on hard grounds with big outfields, that is a big if. And if fitness emerges as an issue – as it already has in taking two of our first choice seamers out of the series, and making a third, Munaf Patel, unavailable from the start – then we just don’t have the bench strength to be competitive.

This is the fault of the selectors. Of the six people who are likely to be on the bench in Melbourne, only two – Rohit and Pragyan Ojha – really deserve to be in Australia. Abhinav Mukund has played Tests in the West Indies and England and is piling on the runs in domestic cricket, yet Ajinkya Rahane – who has never played a Test abroad, and who has spent most of the last couple of months carrying drinks – is back-up opener, to two openers who have themselves been extremely prone to injury this past year. It was clear in the warm-up games that Rahane is in no sort of form, and both he, and the team, would have been served far better had he been left at home to get some domestic cricket in, and the in-form Mukund been selected instead. And Wriddhiman Saha is just not good enough to bat at 7 in a Test match, so if he did have to step in for Dhoni, then our batting would become even more vulnerable than it is.

But the real scandal concerns the fast bowlers who have replaced PK and Aaron. Mithun and Vinay Kumar are game tryers, but there is no way, on either form or ability, that either should be in Australia, so god help us if any of our three frontline seamers – two of whom are physically fragile – break down at any point in the series. Irfan Pathan has toured Australia twice, with great success each time; provides the all-round skills to allow us to contemplate 5 bowlers; and, by the time the team to Australia was selected, had already picked up more Ranji wickets this year than Mithun and Vinay combined; yet is still sitting at home playing for Baroda.

We could have also done with a genuine conventional right-arm swing bowler, given Australia’s well touted weakness against swing, especially once PK was injured. In theory Sreesanth fits the bill, but he too is injured and has been given enough chances. The one bowler in India who fits a profile similar to Sreesanth – capable of swinging the ball big in the mid-to-high 130s – is Ashok Dinda, who has also been getting wickets by the bagful. Sourav Ganguly claims Dinda is the best fast bowler in India today. There might be a bit of parochial bias in that statement, but Ganguly is a great judge of talent, and if he backs someone, I take it seriously. One can understand Irfan and Dinda not making the first cut – those are judgment calls, and while I think both have stronger credentials than Aaron, certainly PK had first claim to a spot – but to not have either in Australia even as replacements, and to have Mithun and Vinay there instead, is nothing short of scandalous. What this means, effectively, is that we are a touring party of 13. We saw what the consequences of poor bench strength were in England, and if we have to witness that again, it won’t be pretty.

The final reason why Australia are favorites concerns Melbourne rather than the series altogether. And that is that, over the past two decades, the MCG has been one of India’s worst grounds, along with Lord’s and Bridgetown. The Bridgetown threat has been recently mitigated somewhat because the West Indies are so awful (though we still didn’t win a Test there when we toured); but Lord’s and MCG have been terrible grounds for us. The last three Tests we have played at the MCG have all resulted in 100+ run defeats. (The last defeat was by 337 runs). So if we keep going on about the fact that Australia hasn’t beaten us in the last eight Tests, then this little bit of counter-history might be a humbling fact to chew upon.

All in all, I don’t give India a chance at Melbourne. The question is whether we can recover after that, as we have done on many recent tours abroad, or whether this would mark the beginning of a drubbing as we received in England. The answer to that will largely depend on the fitness of our first choice XI. For me, as always, Dravid and Zak are going to be key. And on the Aussie side, the two young comeback men, Marsh and Hilfenhaus, are I think ones to watch and fear.

From a strategic point of view, given that ultimately Tests are won by getting 20 wickets, I would still advocate going in with 5 bowlers – having Ashwin bat at 7, and playing both spinners. Don’t get me wrong, I am a huge fan of Virat Kohli, and think he should be given maximum encouragement. But if our much-vaunted top 5 can’t get us more runs than Australia’s much-derided line-up, then it is too much to ask a relative rookie such as Kohli to solve that problem; if they do fire, then an extra bowler will be of more use than an extra batsman in any case. But that, alas, will not happen. This is partly because of Dhoni’s stubbornness (and basically defensive mindset) in always playing the extra batsman; partly, I think, because of Dhoni’s lack of confidence in his own ability to bat at 6 in Tests; and partly an indication of Dhoni’s own faith (or lack thereof) in his much-vaunted line-up. That is too bad, because in my mind, our best chance of winning this series comes from playing 5 bowlers, putting as much pressure as possible on Australia’s batting, and giving ourselves the best possible chance of taking 20 wickets.

Irfan must replace PK

This is literally a one-liner. But since I argued for Irfan Pathan's selection in my previous post, his case has only gotten stronger, with yet another five-for against a strong Delhi side. With Praveen Kumar now out of the Australia series, and Munaf Patel still not fit, Irfan must be selected. From the perspective of team balance, he allows us to play 5 bowlers - which is important, given Zaheer's dubious fitness, and will allow us to play both spinners. But just in terms of bowling credentials, there is no one else in India who can make the grade. At the moment, Zak's fitness remains a question mark over four Tests, and I don't see Umesh Yadav and Varun Aaron scaring Aussie batsmen with their low-140s stuff: the Aussies grow up on that, it is bread and butter for them. The thing that troubles the Aussies, especially their technically suspect top order, is swing. Fortunately, Sreesanth is out injured, so he won't tempt the selectors; it really leaves Irfan as the only credible choice. Abhimanyu Mithun has been coming in as reserve of late. Mithun is a game trier, but after a strong debut Ranji season he has done little of note. And his mid-130s hit-the-deck bowling will be slaughtered by the Aussies.

Here's to hoping that Irfan gets his chance and grabs it. Indian cricket needs him, fully fit and firing, in the long term.

Two team selections, one of them important

In the next two days, the Indian selectors will meet twice, first to select the team for the ODIs against the West Indies, then to select for the Tests in Australia. The second, of course, is the big selection, so let me start with my team for that, before working backwards to the ODIs.

I have some fundamental principles guiding my selection for the Australia series, and some of these are things I have highlighted in my posts at the end of the 2010-11 season. The most fundamental thing for me, which I don’t think will be heeded by the selectors or the team management, is that we have to go for quantity in bowling. This is for two reasons. First, our bowling is our weak suit, and indeed we have one of the weaker bowling attacks in world cricket today. This was cruelly exposed in England. The Aussie batting line-up is weaker than England’s, but they will be playing on hard, true wickets at home. If we don’t play 5 bowlers, there is no chance of winning this series. And this is a series we need to play to win: because Australia is beatable now; because we need to expunge the memories of England; and because we owe it to Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman in what will surely be their final tour Down Under.

The second reason is because I will argue that Zaheer Khan should not be selected. He has now declared himself fit, and the selectors say his selection will be “provisional” on his proving that fitness. But this proof will come, most likely, from a single Ranji Trophy match. That is not enough, for me, to prove the fitness of someone who is 33, and who has a record of breaking down on big tours, including on the last tour to Australia. Brett Lee came back from an injury like Zak’s, and even though he played 3 or 4 Tests, he was a shadow of his former self in the longer version of the game. However good a bowler Zak might be, this is just something I am not willing to risk. We need to go in with an attack that we are sure about. Zak’s injury is not something minor (like Munaf Patel’s ankle); hamstrings are difficult injuries to heal even for younger, fitter bodies. In Zak’s absence, 5 bowlers in the 11 is a must.

A very exciting development has happened that has enabled us to contemplate this, and that is the return to first-class cricket for Irfan Pathan, with a bang. In the first three Ranji matches of the season, Irfan already has two five-fors. This is wonderful news, because Irfan remains the only Test-class all-rounder, in terms of ability, for India. Our last Test win in Australia, at Perth, was set up by Irfan, who was man-of-the-match in that game. I would select him for the tour in a heart-beat, this time without the pressure of being the lead bowler (since Ishant Sharma and Praveen Kumar are the automatic choices to lead the attack). No number 6, in any case, has made the spot his own since Ganguly’s retirement, so Irfan at 7 with his bowling is a far better bet than any specialist batsman we can put in at 6.

This means that the top 7 selects itself: Gambhir, Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Dhoni and Irfan. PK and Ishant are the two new ball bowlers, and playing 5 bowlers will allow us the luxury of playing two frontline spinners. This is where I will make a gut call.

This will surprise all those who have followed my Bhaj-bashing on this blog for years, but I think Harbhajan Singh needs to be on the plane to Australia. This is simply because of his record against the Aussies, and his ability to get under their skins. Ashwin is a good bowler, but bowling on true Aussie tracks against Australia is a different ball game from bowling on Indian wickets to the West Indies, who are possibly the worst players of spin in world cricket today. Pragyan Ojha has done enough to earn an extended run in the side, and I certainly think Ashwin should be taken along as a third spinner to keep the heat on Bhaj. Bhaj will have to perform to keep his place in the side, but I would give him a shot at Melbourne. His career is at a crossroads at the moment, and it is up to him to seize this chance and become the senior leader of the attack.

This only leaves the reserves to pick. I already have Ashwin on that list, and Virat Kohli is for me the obvious back-up middle-order batsman, someone who can play at 6 should the need arise to pick the extra specialist batsman. Parthiv Patel is also, for me, the obvious reserve keeper, because I don’t think that Wriddhiman Saha is good enough to bat at 7 (let alone 6) should Dhoni be injured. Umesh Yadav, I think, still has a lot of skills to develop, but his performances against the West Indies have been promising. Australia isn’t going to be afraid of a bowler who bowls in the low-140s: even Shane Watson, their slowest fast bowler, can hit those speeds. But Yadav does have the basics to be a good fast bowler, and if we get a genuinely quick wicket having the option of playing him as a fourth seamer would be useful to have. The fifth seamer I would take along would be Munaf Patel, who for me is the most improved Indian cricketer of the past year. He should be fully recovered by then, and he provides the option of tight, hit-the-deck, wicket-to-wicket stock bowling. It is time to give him another look-in in the longer version of the game. I have seen nothing in Varun Aaron’s bowling to suggest that he is ready for a long tour of Australia, and I think the selectors’ patience with Sreesanth has finally and rightly worn off.

That only leaves the reserve opener’s spot. Ajinkya Rahane has it against the West Indies, but here again I would use gut and selectorial judgment to take Abhinav Mukund along instead. Rahane is the prettier batsman, and has played some good one-day knocks. But technically, he has the same weaknesses as Mukund, viz. a tendency to push at balls outside off-stump away from the body. This clearly comes from growing up on flat Indian tracks, and it is something that can be worked on and ironed out. What I really like about Mukund though is his temperament: even when the going was tough in England, he showed that he has a strong head on his shoulder. That is a vital attribute in a youngster, and he is not someone who should be given up on. He has experience playing in the West Indies and England, and that is something that will stand him in good stead in Australia. Rahane’s day will come, but Mukund is the one I will invest in first. Indeed, I would even give Mukund a run in the one-dayers against the West Indies, to give him some confidence: he is no more a Test specialist than Rahane is.

Hence, my team for the Australia Tests:

1. Gautam Gambhir (V)
2. Virendra Sehwag
3. Rahul Dravid
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. V.V.S. Laxman
6. Mahendra Dhoni © (W)
7. Irfan Pathan
8. Harbhajan Singh
9. Praveen Kumar
10. Ishant Sharma
11. Pragyan Ojha

Reserves:

12. Abhinav Mukund
13. Virat Kohli
14. Parthiv Patel (W)
15. Munaf Patel
16. Umesh Yadav
17. Ravichandran Ashwin

For the one-dayers against the West Indies, I would rest a few people. Top of that list would be Dhoni, who desperately needs a break. But I would also rest Sehwag and Tendulkar. As I have suggested before, Viru needs to be dealt with carefully, and in my mind he should purely be selected for Test matches in the future. Neither he nor Sachin is likely to play the next World Cup, and I think Sachin should probably just have retired from one-dayers after the World Cup win. This will allow us to groom youngsters to partner Gambhir at the top of the order in the long-term. As I have suggested, Mukund should be in the picture here, as should Rahane, who played a couple of good knocks against England.

Parthiv Patel remains the best man to back Dhoni up in Tests, but he didn’t do enough as a one-day batsman against England to be his obvious replacement. Rather, I would finally recall the long-suffering Robin Uthappa, who has had to wait for four years to fight his way back into India contention. Uthappa has in the meantime developed into a more than functional limited overs keeper, and he provides the ability to finish an innings explosively that Dhoni has. He’s the right man to replace Dhoni at 6. Gambhir, Kohli, Yuvraj and Raina of course are automatic selections, and Gambhir should be leading the side in Dhoni’s absence, with Kohli, not Raina, the more worthy deputy.

I would rather have Irfan and Bhaj play a couple of more Ranji games before Australia than play one-day games at this point. Ravindra Jadeja did enough against England to retain the all-rounder’s spot at 7, and Ashwin has emerged as a better limited overs bowler than Bhaj. PK has had a bit of a rest, so he, Ishant and Munaf can form the seam attack, with Umesh Yadav backing them up. Pragyan Ojha also needs to be in the picture, he is yards ahead of Rahul Sharma, who has no credentials whatsoever to be part of the plan.

My final spot would go to another seamer, and here I would make a long-term investment. I do think we need to find a long-term left-arm seam replacement for Zak. Irfan could be one, but it is still too early to say if he will make the kind of comeback that I hope he will. R.P. Singh should have been the one, but he has been too lazy and has turned into a joke. And Jaydev Unadkat, clearly, is not remotely ready for international cricket.

This is why I would give the young Delhi seamer Pradeep Sangwan a chance. He is 22, but has had 3 or 4 seasons of domestic experience. Sehwag rates him as one of the best bowlers in India: not praise to be dismissed lightly. After an injury-ridden season last year, he is bowling beautifully this season. Why not give him a go and see what he can do?

So, my team against the West Indies for the one-day games:

1. Abhinav Mukund
2. Gautam Gambhir ©
3. Virat Kohli (V)
4. Yuvraj Singh
5. Suresh Raina
6. Robin Uthappa (W)
7. Ravindra Jadeja
8. Ravichandran Ashwin
9. Praveen Kumar
10. Ishant Sharma
11. Munaf Patel

Reserves:

12. Ajinkya Rahane
13. Umesh Yadav
14. Pradeep Sangwan
15. Pragyan Ojha