Three thoughts in the middle of the Delhi Test

I am starting to write this as Day 5 of the Delhi Test is about to begin. The game is virtually over, though of course nothing can be predicted with absolute certainty when India and Pakistan are playing. This is a match that we very well could and should have lost. More than anything else, the one thing that saved us was that Pakistan is the one team capable of imploding more spectacularly than we are, and true to form they imploded spectacularly at just the right times. Australia and South Africa, our next two opponents, will not be so forgiving.

Anyway, my three thoughts concern two mistakes that I think we made, and a little side rant and prediction. The thoughts are as follows:

The first mistake that was made going into the game was the selection of Munaf Patel instead of Irfan Pathan. I can understand the logic of keeping Irfan out of the initial team that was selected. There is no question that Zaheer, Sreesanth and R.P. are our three frontline seamers, and in a team of 14 there was probably no need for a 4th seamer. Well as Irfan has bowled in one-dayers, he hasn’t bowled much in the longer version of the game since his horrors of the past year. And even in one-dayers, his success was coming from clever changes of pace, and not from the prodigious swing that made him such a force when he first burst on to the scene. Clever changes of pace alone are unlikely to get you too far in the longer version of the game, so it made sense to send him back to the domestic game to work up some form and rhythm.

But to keep him out once Sreesanth and R.P. were both injured was senseless. To keep him out for Munaf was stupidity.

Let’s look at Munaf’s credentials here. This is a bowler who came into the Indian team with the reputation of being a tear-away fast bowler, the thinking being that the Indian attack needed someone with genuine pace who could be a strike bowler. That is sound reasoning, but for various reasons – Chappell’s tinkering, the fact that Munaf was low on accuracy when he bowled flat out, etc – he has never bowled at anything approaching tear-away pace while playing for India. Even throughout this Test, he has bowled somewhere in the 133-135 kph range, much the same as Zaheer Khan or any medium-pacer anywhere in the world. Indeed, Irfan, who has come under huge (and rather unnecessary) fire for losing his pace over the past year, was consistently hitting 135 in the one-day series. On reputation, the idea behind playing Munaf ahead of Irfan in Tests is that Munaf is a genuine pace bowler, Irfan is slowish-medium, and in Tests one needs a genuine pacer. But in fact, this relative categorization of Munaf and Irfan is just empirically wrong, and it has been empirically wrong for much of the last two years that Munaf has played international cricket. If Munaf, like Shoaib Akhtar, was consistently clocking in the high 140s, then I would have tolerated all the other stuff we have seen from him – the lack of sustained intensity, his getting hit for runs, on again, off again accuracy. But for someone to bowl at 133 and then spray it around, turn up one innings and go missing the next, is just inexcusable.

This isn’t the first time that Munaf has let India down. He did so spectacularly in the Cape Town Test, when we desperately needed him to back up Zaheer and Sreesanth but he only bowled one over in the crucial second innings. Doubts about his fitness and attitude were rife even then. Yet, after a mysterious injury that kept him out of the Test series in England, he was pulled straight back into the team for the one-dayers, ahead of Sreesanth, who in fact is the one bowler in India who consistently bowls in the 140s. He was an absolute flop in the couple of one-dayers he played, and the mysterious fitness problems surfaced again, leading Venkatesh Prasad, normally a low-key and mild-mannered figure, to publicly question his commitment and his selection. He was rightfully dropped after that, the second time he had let the team down in 6 months. Yet, even though he has only played 3 first-class games since then, here he is, back in the team. And after a tight but relatively unpenetrative 1st innings performance, he was a shambles in the second innings, a real weak link that one cannot afford in a 4-man attack. Meanwhile, Irfan picked up 4 wickets against a useful Hyderabad line-up, showing that he does have form in the longer version of the game as well.

Finally, Munaf adds no other value to the side. He is a genuine rabbit with the bat, and in a tight series like this, it is particularly important to have 11 people who can contribute at least a little with the bat. And he is a liability in the field. Irfan is a genuine all-rounder, and one of India’s better fielders. Had Irfan been in the side, Laxman would have almost certainly had the support to get to his 100, and India would have almost certainly managed another 50 or 60 runs in the 1st innings – and that would have meant a match-winning lead without a doubt.

Yes, every selection matters, and even one blunder can make the difference between a Test win and a loss, between a series win and a loss. If Pakistan had applied themselves properly yesterday to make another 75-100 runs than they did, we would have likely lost this Test. Then, the selectors’ genius in replacing Sreesanth and R.P. with Munaf would have been the decision that made that possible.

This is the third time in a year that Munaf has let India down like this, and with Sree and R.P. out of the Calcutta Test as well, hopefully the selectors will see sense and not make the mistake of retaining him. In a sense, we got out of jail here because of Pakistan’s mystifyingly defensive attitude in the 1st innings, which handed the initiative to the Indians. We have also been lucky that neither Younis nor Yousuf got going in either innings, in spite of both looking in good touch. Sooner or later, normal service is bound to resume on their front, and there is every chance that the Eden Gardens wicket will be less sluggish and more conducive to stroke play than the Kotla wicket has been. As it is, we are only playing 4 bowlers. Out of those 4, Harbhajan Singh remains a gamble, because he is such a confidence bowler that he really needs an early wicket in his spell to get going. Otherwise, he very quickly becomes flat and defensive, easily milked and completely non-threatening. So of the remaining three bowlers, we really only have two-and-a-half. If the 4th bowler has to be hidden, then on a better batting track, it will be murder. Part of the reason we were saved was because Ganguly was so effective as a bowler. That in part had to do with the sluggishness of the track, and in part to Pakistan’s aversion to taking him on. Ganguly can’t be relied upon to bail India out on a livelier track and against a more positive mindset – at the end of the day, he is a change bowler, not a frontline bowler.

The tendency of Indian selectors is to retain a winning combination, so there is a real danger that Munaf will be kept in the side by default. But there are two better alternatives. One obvious alternative is to replace him with Irfan. This would be the safe and sensible decision, and it will crucially beef up the batting as well. The second alternative is to play horses for courses, and give Ranadeb Bose a debut on home ground. That would also make sense for a number of reasons.

Let’s consider Bose’s case here. It is obvious that we have a problem of a lack of depth in the pace department. We finally have three quality Test match seamers in Zaheer, R.P. and Sreesanth, but the question of who backs them up if any of them gets injured remains. Pathan is an obvious candidate, but question marks remain about his efficacy in Tests. Munaf has let the team down too often, and hopefully the idea of pulling Ajit Agarkar out of the bag every time the question of a back-up seamer arises has finally been laid to rest. The youngsters who have been tried like VRV Singh and Ishant Sharma still look raw.

Yet here is Ranadeb Bose, who picked up 57 wickets in last year’s Ranji Trophy, who has been performing year after year after year, and who is constantly overlooked. Justice was finally done when he was taken to England, and while he didn’t get a chance in the Tests, he picked up 5 wickets in a tour game. So that series was certainly no flop for him. Yet now suddenly it’s been decided, without even giving him a chance, that while he was good enough to be in the side in August, he’s not good enough anymore? On what basis could such a decision be made?

The standard case made against Bose is that he isn’t quick enough. He’s very much one of those 125 kph wicket to wicket swing bowlers. I can understand selecting someone who bowls at 150 over someone who bowls at 125, because the former bowler would add an extra dimension to the attack regardless of how consistent he is. But Munaf’s extra 8-10 kph over Bose doesn’t constitute the sort of difference that justifies Bose’s exclusion. In any case, there is no reason why someone who bowls at 125 can’t be successful in Tests. Ganguly was so difficult to handle precisely because he was slow off the wicket – that slowness, combined with nagging accuracy, can be an extremely effective weapon, especially against teams like Pakistan that often don’t have the temperament to grind it out against attritional bowling. India’s best support bowler of the 1980s, Roger Binny, bowled in the 120s but no was less effective for all that. Our best support bowler of the 1990s, Venkatesh Prasad, also bowled in the 120s but was one of the best swing bowlers of the decade. Sure, neither was the spearhead of the attack – Binny complemented Kapil Dev, Prasad complemented Srinath. But Bose could be just the foil that Zaheer Khan needs; he could be just the stock bowler who can come in for an injured Sreesanth or R.P. and provide a second / third bowler option. He could bowl long spells, tying one end down so that other bowlers could attack at the other end. It is precisely such a bowler we need.

Another argument made against Bose is that his type of bowling can be effective in English conditions where the ball swings, but not in India. This overlooks the simple empirical fact that the 57 wickets he got in the Ranji Trophy were in India – Bengal wasn’t heading off to Headingley to play their domestic games. And a number of those games were at Eden Gardens, a ground and conditions he knows well. Why not give him a go? Indeed, Eden Gardens always has something in it for swing bowlers – Prasad always enjoyed bowling there, and Binny ran through the Pakistan batting line-up there in 1986-87.

It is particularly ironic that it is this selection committee that is keeping Bose out. One of its members is Bhupinder Singh, one of the best fast bowlers on the domestic circuit through the 1990s, yet never given a chance to represent India in Tests. Surely he would know what it feels like to perform year in and year out and not get a chance at the highest level, while other mediocrities keep coming and going on the basis of the odd performance here and there? Ishant Sharma has been pulled into the side on the basis of a 7-wicket haul against Saurashtra. Saurashtra. And that counts for more than 57 wickets across an entire season?

Let’s pull Pathan back into the picture. Let’s finally give Bose a chance, in front of a supportive home crowd. Let’s see if these two can provide us the bench strength we need in Australia to back up Sree and R.P. Because Munaf Patel certainly won’t provide it.

The second mistake was an old mistake, which was having V.V.S. Laxman come in at 6 instead of at 3, where he belongs. And this too was a mistake that could have cost us the game.

There are three reasons why Laxman should be batting at 3. The first is that it is his best position, and you try and play all your players at their best positions. 3 might be Dravid’s most familiar position, but it’s not necessarily his best. He has played some of his best knocks at 4 (the two match-winning classics at Kingston last year) and at 6 (the 180 in Calcutta to support Laxman’s 281). Given that Sachin’s favorite slot is 4, and Ganguly is enjoying himself at 5, flipping Laxman and Dravid as was done at Eden Gardens so famously 6 years ago would be a good idea.

This especially because Dravid’s form is still patchy. He has done well enough in this game, and looked solid enough, but it is still a far cry from Dravid at his peak. And he has now gone 7 Test matches without a 50 – not really the sort of form you want from someone coming in at 3. Finally, Laxman at 6 means Laxman batting with the tail, and he is not the sort of person who is good at farming the strike and batting well with the tail. We saw that in this game, but we also saw it throughout the England series, when Dravid was struggling, Laxman was batting beautifully, yet it was Dravid walking in at 3 and Laxman at 6. This was in spite of the fact that Dravid was sending himself in at the most peculiar positions in one-dayers, including down at 6 – a slot that he shouldn’t be occupying in the shorter version of the game. Laxman at 3 would have had 3 more batsmen to bat with. The way he was batting, that would have meant another 30 runs at least for him, and a well deserved century; and another 50-60 runs for the team, and a match-winning lead. Laxman is not being given the time and space to express himself, and then he is being put under constant pressure for his place in the side. This is unfair on Laxman, and not good for the team.

While on the topic of Laxman, let’s pause for a moment and just salute the majesty of this innings, shall we? Most writers in the media (Mukul Kesavan excepted) only write about Laxman to write about how his place in the side is under threat – indeed, this is an obligatory sentence in virtually any match or series preview these days. Occasionally, people will write about Laxman to mention how slow he is between wickets or what a liability he is in the field.

The beauty of Laxman’s innings was not just the value of the knock in a crisis situation. After all, throughout his career, Laxman has come up with valuable knocks in crisis situations – perhaps with even greater consistency than Dravid has, certainly far more often than Sachin has. The beauty of it was that he never once looked troubled – not against Akhtar’s searing pace, nor against Tanvir’s unorthodoxy, nor against Kaneria’s spin. Dravid, for all his solidity, had his inside edges to the boundary; was beaten outside off stump chasing balls he could have left alone; was castled to be bowled in both innings. Dravid is supposedly the technical master of the side; Laxman’s technique has always been claimed as suspect. But not once did Laxman flirt outside off-stump; not once did he look edgy; not once did the ball slip between bat and pad or take an edge. Everything was off the middle, everything was deliberate, and everything was oh so languid.

Laxman is often summarized as “wristy”, often compared with Azharuddin. Yes he’s wristy, but he’s a far more complete batsman than Azhar ever was. Azhar’s wristiness was elaborate, like a magician waving a wand; Laxman’s is with a minimum of fuss and a maximum of control, like a master potter making a dent in the clay at exactly the right place, exactly as he wants to. It gives his batting a solidity that Azhar’s lacked; yet, that wristiness means that he can do things with the ball that more technical batsmen like Sachin and Dravid can only achieve with a maximum of risk.

Two shots in Laxman’s innings symbolize this. They were to identical deliveries off Sohail Tanvir, pitching on off and middle, on a good length, angling away to off but without too much swing off the wicket. On one occasion, he drove the ball with the straightest of bats down the ground for 4 – the sort of straight drive Sachin would have been proud of, except that it had more back lift, and hence a hint more flourish, than Sachin’s would have had. On the other occasion, the same delivery was guided with a flick of the wrist wide of mid-on for 4. It wasn’t the bat traveling in an elaborate arc from gully, as it would have been in Azhar’s case. It was just a little adjustment, a little decision, but such perfect timing, such perfect placement, such perfect execution. In a word, genius.

The unrelated thought / rant. Apparently the BCCI has decided we will have a coach in 10 days. After 8 months of complete inaction, 2 months after a pile of applications started gathering dust without a second thought, a coach is going to be conjured up like a rabbit out of a hat and sent off to Australia on the toughest assignment in world cricket within 10 days of his appointment. How exactly this conjuring trick is going to be effected is anyone’s guess, though it will no doubt be through the deliberations of the Three Wise Men in Gavaskar, Shastri and Venkatraghavan. With Gavaskar involved, of course, anything is possible. The last time around, Gavaskar managed to come up with John Emburey’s name. Who knows, this time it could be Pargat Singh. Surely someone who captained India’s hockey team in the 1980s could make a wonderful coach for our cricket team today.

There is one person more than any other that I would like to see appointed as coach. This has nothing to do with whether they are Indian or foreign, but has to do with what I see as the makings of a successful coach, based on our experience with John Wright. He clearly needs to be someone with a coaching resume – just sending a former player along with the team on a jaunt isn’t going to cut it. But in India’s case, I think being a former player with some international stature, rather than just a professional county coach, would be important. After all, this job involves coaching some of the most well known names in the history of the sport, and I do think there’s a certain authority that comes with having been a former player, as also a better appreciation of the sorts of pressures that come with the job of being an Indian cricketer. This is why someone like Tim Boon, who has been an excellent coach for Leicestershire, would not necessarily be the best coach for India.

Too much international stature, as Greg Chappell showed, can however be a liability. A good coach stays in the back room, and isn’t the star of the show himself. People like Viv Richards and Martin Crowe have offered their services, but I think they will be the wrong choices for precisely this reason. We need a coach who can make strategy, not news. Someone who can exercise authority over the team, yet meld into the background. Someone who is ideally not Australian, because I think there is a hubris and inflexibility about Australian standards that doesn’t mesh well with less robotically professional teams like India. But someone who can nonetheless instill professionalism in the side, like Wright managed to do. And someone who is interested in coaching India, who is willing to take on the challenge and the hardship that will come with it.

On all these counts, the best man for the job would be Kepler Wessels. He is a player of stature, and has had experience captaining South Africa. But he isn’t a superstar or loud mouth who is constantly expressing himself in the press. He is apparently one of the people who applied for the post in September, suggesting this is an assignment he would be interested in taking up. He has considerable experience as a county coach for Northants, and has also recently coached the South Africa A side.

However, it seems extremely unlikely that any foreigner in his right mind would agree to take up a coaching assignment on 10 days notice, show up in India, and head off to Australia straight away. So it seems most likely that the job will go to an Indian. It is unlikely to be Lalchand Rajput, who has done a good job as manager so far, but who has locked horns with Dilip Vengsarkar, which probably wouldn’t have earned him brownie points. My prediction, therefore, is that it will be Chandrakant Pandit, who is one of the Indians who has applied for the position; who has strong domestic coaching credentials; and who (unlike people like Robin Singh or Prasad or Praveen Amre) is more senior than the senior players in the Indian team. I think that compared to some of the jokers who have coached India over the past two decades, Pandit will be a safe choice – he is a low profile person, and has coaching experience and credentials – but whether he will be able to make the tough decisions that will need to be made, such as deciding whether and when to phase senior players out of the one-day team, is an open question.

The other reason that Pandit will likely get the job is because he is comfortably part of the Bombay establishment that now rules the roost in Indian cricket. After all, the BCCI is run by Sharad Pawar; the Chairman of selectors is Vengsarkar; the two most powerful non-playing men in Indian cricket are Shastri and Gavaskar; and within the team, Sachin remains the one player who pretty much gets to decide upon his own selection. (Of course, the other characteristic that unites all these people is power without responsibility – neither the BCCI nor the selectors have ever been held accountable for anything; Shastri and Gavaskar are king-makers who refuse to themselves take on the responsibility of managing or coaching the side; while Sachin decided he didn’t want the burden of captaincy when the selectors turned to him). At any rate, I guess some coach is better than no coach; and I guess Pandit would be better than Mohinder Amarnath or Kapil Dev or Bishen Bedi or other such luminaries who have recently coached or desired to coach India on the basis of little other than loud media sound bites. But now nice it would have been if we could have had a proper search, and the best coach possible to take India to Australia.

That, I guess, is too much to ask for.