It's not the seniors, stupid (or, thank god this series is nearly over)

I find it ridiculous that the media consensus about the India-Australia series seems to be that seniors like Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid and Zaheer no longer have a future with the Indian team (at least its one-day team). The notable exception to this popular wisdom unsurprisingly comes from the wise heads at cricinfo like Sambit Bal and Anand Vasu. But their intelligence is hardly to be found reflected in the tripe that constitutes the rest of the Indian cricket media.

Forget for a moment that Tendulkar is the one batsman who has shown some consistency in this series, or that he was showing glimpses of his brilliant best in England. Forget the fact that Ganguly averages over 50 in one-dayers since his recall to the side, being by some distance India’s most consistent ODI batsman over the past year. Forget the fact that Dravid has been India’s most consistent batsman bar none over the past decade in both forms of the game, and that his run of poor scores in this series is probably the first serious loss of form he has exhibited since 1997. Forget the fact that Zaheer ran through the English just a few months ago and is looking like one of the best and most intelligent fast bowlers in world cricket today. Forget the fact that, bar Yuvraj Singh, none of the younger players have covered themselves in glory in this series either. The fact of the matter is, Australia is a far, far better team than India is, and the problem is not going to be solved by throwing a bunch of rookies into the deep end. We tried that in the Chappell era just a year ago, remember? And then it was the youngsters who were hammered in South Africa, and the very same pundits who are clamoring for the heads of the seniors now were clamoring for their reinstatement then. Sure, public memory is short. But some intelligence and perspective would be welcome, at least from the chairman of selectors if not from the media and public at large.

Let’s face it – as my good cricket watching friend Yusuf Khan once sagely pointed out to me, sher aur kutte ka tulna nahin ho sakta (one cannot compare a lion to a dog). There is no point expecting to beat Australia when we are not in the same league as the Aussies.

The Australians are not invincible, and their vulnerabilities were shown up in 20/20 – not just by India, but even by Zimbabwe. This is because the Aussies often stutter, especially with their top order. But such is their depth that they invariably have someone to bail them out. 20/20 doesn’t afford the time for bail-outs – 50/50 does. Hence, Australia invariably turn 60/3 or 80/4 into 300; if India is 60/3 or 80/4, one can rest assured that even 200 would be hard to come by. And this isn’t a new phenomenon – who can forget Australia’s opening game of the 2003 World Cup, when Pakistan had them on the mat before Symonds’ majestic 145 put the game beyond doubt? The solution, therefore, lies not in youth, but in depth. And it is depth that will be important against Pakistan as well, given that their bowling attack is as potent, and probably more varied, than Australia’s.

Considering this, India have missed a couple of beats in the series. The first is in team balance. In principle, 6 batsmen and 5 bowlers (with an all-rounder at 7) is the right balance to strike. But against teams with the bowling strength of Australia or Pakistan, extra batting depth is vital. In that regard, I would much rather have had someone like Rohit Sharma (who is a useful enough off-spinner to be groomed as a batting all-rounder) than a second frontline spinner. None of the three spinners we have used in the series has really looked like getting wickets. Powar, so effective against England, was taken apart; Kartik looks on-again, off-again as he has done throughout his career; and Harbhajan Singh has turned into a completely defensive bowler who looks to get 0/40 rather than pick up wickets, which is what front line spinners are supposed to do. A spinner could easily be sacrificed for the batting depth that Rohit would provide. And if we are building a team for the future, then it would be far better to have someone like Rohit learn his trade alongside his illustrious seniors, rather than have him step into those big boots and be left to sink or swim. He seems to be a youngster of impeccable technique, fine temperament, and an ability to switch gears at will – the innings he played against South Africa and Pakistan in the 20/20 were not slogs, but the sorts of knocks that someone like Mike Hussey would have been proud of. And last year, he slammed 41 off just 19 balls against the Aussies in a Champions Trophy warm-up game. He could be just the sort of finisher we need, and a finisher of that quality is someone we haven’t had since Ajay Jadeja’s brief heyday in the late 90s.

Our second mistake has been to fall for the Aussie line on Sreesanth. Sure, he has been wayward with the ball and with his mouth. But in the former instance, he really hasn’t gone for more runs than Zaheer or R.P. Singh (only Pathan amongst the seamers has been consistently more economical). And in the latter case, he’s really no worse (and far better) than the so-called “great” fast bowlers from Australia or South Africa who bring the game into far greater disrepute day in and day out than Sreesanth does. He appeals too much? Well, ever seen Shaun Pollock’s fits when he strikes batsmen on the pads yards outside off-stump? Bowls the occasional beamer? Ever seen the ball “slip” out of Brett Lee’s hands with unerring regularity whenever he’s been hit for a few? Chatters to the batsman too much? Ever seen Andre Nel’s running commentary after every ball he bowls? Gives “inappropriate” lip? Even saw Allan Donald go ballistic at Dravid after being hit for a few; or Glenn McGrath go ballistic at just about everyone who manages to lay the middle of his bat on his deliveries? Pollock, of course, is a great all-rounder. Lee, of course, is a great and genuine fast bowler. Nel, of course, is a “game tryer” (since he also happens to be a mediocre cricketer, one cannot label great epithets on him). Donald and McGrath, of course, are two of the greatest cricketers of the modern era (forget the fact that Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose and Walsh, to name but four of their contemporaries, could make the ball talk and sing in ways that Donald and McGrath could only dream about, and that too without opening their mouths). But Sreesanth is derided, ridiculed, patronized.

Most remarkable of all is Ian Chappell comparing Sreesanth’s antics to Shoaib Akhtar’s dressing room behavior and suggesting he be banned. For what, exactly? It seems that for the senior Chappell, failing to shake hands with Andrew Symonds is as big a crime as bashing up your teammates. Yes, the same Chappell who captained such gentlemen cricketers as Dennis Lillee, who was not averse to mid-pitch brawls and betting against his own team, or Jeff Thompson, who was known to walk up to batsmen and mark crosses on their helmetless foreheads before going back to his bowling mark. Of course, they both no doubt shook hands with their opponents at the end of the game, so that makes their on-field boorishness both virile and gentlemanly.

What is disappointing is that the Indian media seems to have fallen in line with the “Sreesanth’s behavior is inappropriate” line, and are evaluating him based on his personality rather than on his bowling. I for one would love him to be more consistent, but the fact of the matter is that he picked up 8 wickets in the first 3 matches he played, and has looked far more likely than any of his teammates to get wickets at all. And against a team like Australia, getting wickets is the only way to check their progress. They cannot be checked by accurate and defensive bowling, because with wickets in hand they have such depth that they can accelerate at will. The media is fawning praise on the likes of Bhajji and Pathan because they are going for 5 an over rather than 7; but conceding 5 an over without getting wickets is basically like providing a platform for Australia to post a 300+ score. Sreesanth has been inconsistent; but he has consistently looked like the one bowler likely to get wickets; he provides a genuine fast bowling option in a team of medium-pacers; and his right arm bowling provides variety that is crucial. At this stage in his career, he needs his team and management to back him, not to discipline him.

All in all, this has been a disappointing series. Not because we have lost, since that was a foregone conclusion; but because there hasn’t been enough of a fight, or enough of a plan; and because the opposition has been so patronizing in victory and boorish in defeat. Australia is a great team, no doubt about that. But as a group, they leave a sour taste in the mouth, unlike other great teams, like the West Indians of the 70s and 80s, whose greatness was classy and majestic. This is a team inspires some awe, but with a little bit of revulsion alongside it. They are less ambassadors for the sport than schoolyard bullies who are too strong for anyone else. This isn’t to detract from the quality of cricket they play. It is just to say that I, for one, cannot wait for them to leave and the Pakistanis to take their place. This is not just because Pakistan is more beatable; it is also because it will nice to play against gentlemen for a change.