Napier Test thoughts

I apologize for being off the blog for so long. I have been traveling and busy. There is a lot that I want to write about, including the win at Hamilton and the horrific attack on the Sri Lankans in Lahore. But in order to stay up-to-date, let me just write my thoughts on the Napier Test.

My predominant feeling is one of relief that we got out of jail. Though of course, we were the ones who got ourselves into jail in the first place. The second innings batting performance was resolute. The first innings performance was simply inept. We got to see the Jekyll and Hyde of Indian batting in this game.

But really, cricket was the loser in this game, and that was because of the pitch. I don’t know why batting pitches are called “good” pitches, because a pitch like this goes against the very essence of cricket, which is supposed to be a contest between bat and ball. The problem is, this isn’t a one-off problem. There has been brilliant cricket between Australia and South Africa; but alongside that, a travesty of a game in Karachi (which no doubt would have carried on throughout the Pakistan-Sri Lanka series had it not been so rudely interrupted); and, except for one session of brilliance from Jerome Taylor, one of the most boring series imaginable between England and the West Indies. All because of third-rate pitches that offered nothing to bowlers. It is almost as if the game’s administrators are purposefully trying to kill off Test cricket – and perhaps they are. If pitches like this continue to be prepared, they will succeed. The only thing that made this game interesting was India’s own poor batting in the first innings. Otherwise, as Daniel Vettori said, you could play another five-day Test on it and it still wouldn’t yield a result.

I am particularly surprised that pitches like this are being prepared in New Zealand. Surely one would prepare pitches that suit your home team’s strengths, especially if you are playing a far superior team against whom your only advantage is playing at home? I think even the Indians would in some respects have enjoyed playing on seaming wickets more. If they are aspiring to be the top team in world cricket, then they would want to test themselves in a whole range of conditions. What is the point of turning up in New Zealand and playing on a pitch that’s not much different from what you would find for a Ranji Trophy game in Rajkot? Hopefully the Basin Reserve will throw up a more seam-friendly track. It is certainly New Zealand’s only chance of leveling the series, and it will make for better and more absorbing cricket, regardless of one’s allegiance.

In terms of the game itself, I think there were three pluses are four minuses.

The first plus, undoubtedly, was Gautam Gambhir. The pitch might have been flat, but his second innings effort was still colossal. Given the match situation; given Gambhir’s own relative inexperience in Test matches outside the sub-continent; given Gambhir’s natural game and how he had to curb it; and given the way he had gotten out in the first innings, this was a knock of the highest order.

How Gambhir has come along in the past 18 months! He was always a talent, and always a bully in domestic cricket. But first he made a name for himself as an impact player in T20. Then he developed himself into one of the most consistent batsmen in the 50-over game. Then he started playing useful Test knocks. Then he started converting those pretty 60s and 70s into 100s. And now he has shown what the best Test batsmen have to show, which is adaptability to the needs of the situation. Gambhir would have learnt a lot about Test cricket, and about himself, from this knock, and that is good news for Indian cricket.

The second plus was Jesse Ryder. What a delightful cricketer he is! His talent was in evidence when he burst onto the one-day scene a couple of years ago. But what has really impressed through this series has been his maturity. Again, good batting track; but again, like Gambhir, not an easy situation. He walked in at 23 for 3, with Zaheer and Ishant on fire, and Ross Taylor looking like a cat on a hot tin roof at the other end. And he batted flawlessly for his 200, looking impregnable in defense but taking advantage of every scoring opportunity that presented itself. Add to that his brilliant fielding and his useful dibbly-dobs with the ball, and you really have one exciting package. He presents exciting possibilities for Bangalore in the IPL, and indeed, might be more likely to turn their fortunes around than Kevin Pietersen. Given how little Bangalore paid for him, he could well turn out to be the most value-for-money player in this year’s league.

The thing that is so uplifting about Gambhir’s and Ryder’s success is how they have both overcome their own volatile temperaments to reach where they have. Both players have in the past had a tendency to hurt themselves with their feistiness; neither has the natural calm of a Dravid or a Vettori. That both of them have played such exemplary cricket for their respective sides is really something that one can only celebrate and feel happy about.

The third plus was Dravid. His performance certainly wasn’t in the league of Gambhir’s or Ryder’s, but it is good to see the confidence back. Last year, even on the rare occasions when Dravid made runs, he looked scratchy and miserable, and I have to admit that I wasn’t sure if the old form and confidence would ever come back or if it was time for him to retire. So it is good to see him prove the old adage that form is temporary, but class permanent. An assured Dravid at 3 makes such a difference to the overall feel of the Indian batting line-up. Laxman of course outplayed him; but Laxman’s was merely a continuation of form from last year. Dravid has clearly had to fight a lot of demons these past few months, and it looks like he might have won the battle.

All four minuses have to do with Indian performances. This isn’t to say that New Zealand doesn’t have minuses – their top order, for instance, is woeful. It is just that I don’t care about their minuses as I do about ours, so that is what I will focus on.

For me, four people disappointed in this game – Sehwag, Yuvraj, Karthik and Munaf. So let us consider each of them one by one.

Viru disappointed as both batsman and captain. His dismissals in both innings were unconscionable, and his leadership on the field was insipid. But I have to say that I’m not too worried about him. Sure, I hope he never repeats shots like that again. But he was just playing his natural game. Sure, it would be nice if he could have tailored his game to the needs of the situation. But we know he can do so, and indeed he did so majestically at Galle against Murali and Mendis just this past summer. As Sambit Bal wrote on cricinfo, I think his problem was that he just didn’t rate the New Zealand spinners highly enough; and cricket is a great leveler when you go in with that kind of arrogance. Hopefully he would have learnt something from this outing.

What perplexed me was how disappointing his captaincy was, given that on the one previous occasion when he captained India in a Test (Ahmedabad against Sri Lanka in 2005), he was quite brilliant. I have always admired Viru’s cricketing brain, and thought that he was also very good when in charge of the Delhi Daredevils in the IPL last year. But in this game, he just let things drift for large parts of the New Zealand innings; he seemed completely unwilling or unable to motivate the players in the field; and his field placements ranged from the extremely defensive (sweeper cover throughout the innings for just about everyone) to simply bizarre (the staggered slip cordon, which was bisected on more than one occasion by genuine edges). I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, given that he had to don the captain’s blazer on such short notice; but I have to say I was unpleasantly surprised. It is clear from this just how much this team feeds off Dhoni’s inspirational leadership.

Yuvraj might have redeemed himself somewhat with his second innings 50, but I still have worries about him. That knock came at the fag-end of a game, flat track, with the game virtually saved, and the New Zealanders knackered. For the rest of the game, however, Yuvraj was a disaster, with the bat and in the field, and the questions about his Test match abilities persist.

There are two problems with Yuvraj as a Test batsman. The first is technique, and the second temperament. That makes for a pretty comprehensive set of problems.

Certainly, Yuvi has talent. And on a flat track, he can make bowlers pay. But on tracks with a bit of nip in them, even run-of-the-mill swing bowlers would fancy their chances against him. The way he batted in the first innings reminded me of 1980s and 90s horror stories of Indian batsmen when they stepped abroad – Yuvi’s knock would have done Arun Lal or Vikram Rathore proud in terms of the utter lack of ability around off-stump. And of course, there is still the vulnerability against quality spin bowling. So if he doesn’t have the technique to play pace, and doesn’t have the technique to play spin, this presents a slight problem.

What makes up for it is that he is a confidence player, and when on song sheer confidence and ability sees him through. But the inverse also operates – when not on song, he goes to pieces in most dramatic fashion. We saw that when he sleepwalked through the tour of Australia last year – where again, it wasn’t just that he batted poorly, he also fielded like a zombie. And much of this game was the same. Good Test players are those who can battle through even when they are not on top of their game; and indeed, someone like Gambhir looked anything but fluent at the start of his second innings, but just stuck in there. I don’t think Yuvraj has the capacity, or the mental strength, to battle through tough situations like that, when he is not already in the zone.

He has probably done enough to retain his place in the side for the final Test; and indeed, he did play a couple of crucial knocks against England. And the fact that he is such a brilliant one-day player means that he will always remain in the picture for Test selection. It is probably also fair to give him a proper run, however defined, at the no. 6 spot, given that it is only after Ganguly’s retirement that this spot for him has had any look of permanence to it.

But on the other hand, if one looks dispassionately and in the long term, is Yuvi ever going to be an all-condition Test batsman? Is he really as good, technically, as either Badrinath or Rohit Sharma, who are both being kept out of the Test side on his account, and who have not been given half the chances he has? Is he really even as good as Dinesh Karthik, who has shown his ability to succeed as a batsman – in Tests, as an opener, in England – given that Yuvraj has not really succeeded in any position in Tests outside the sub-continent? Sure, he should be given a fair run – but of all the people in contention for that no. 6 spot, is he the most deserving of that fair run?

Karthik of course had a miserable game here, in front of and behind the stumps, to follow the two miserable games he had in Sri Lanka. But I am more sympathetic to him than I am to Yuvi.

First of all, I think he is in an unenviable position, because as long as he is picked in the side as second keeper, he is destined to carry the drinks unless Dhoni is injured. This means he is always in a no-win situation when he does play, and usually (as in this Test), he gets to play at short notice. Don’t get me wrong, I think DK is a pretty ordinary keeper – certainly Dhoni is a far better keeper than he is. But there aren’t that many good keepers doing the rounds in India (Parthiv Patel, in my mind, is far worse behind the stumps than DK is). Bengal’s Wriddhiman Saha might be someone to consider down the road. But the fact is, as long as the second keeper is being selected as Dhoni’s understudy, he has to be someone who can bat at no. 7 in Dhoni’s absence. And regardless of keeping skills, DK fits that bill better than anyone else.

Because the fact is, DK can bat, and he can bat well, and with spunk. He can stonewall if he needs to, and he can improvise and get quick runs if he needs to. And he has shown that, not just in domestic cricket (where he has come off a sensational year), but in international cricket. Let us not forget, that as makeshift opener, he was India’s top run-scorer in the 2007 Test series in England. Even regular openers often don’t manage that. Top run-scorer. In England. This is a non-trivial achievement. Do you think Yuvraj will ever be top-scorer in a series in England, at no. 6, let alone as opener? I don’t.

In other words, I think DK has to stay in the mix, because I think there is real talent there, and real temperament. But his place in the side has to be understood not as reserve keeper, but as reserve batsman. He is one of the best batsmen in Indian cricket today; he is every bit as deserving of a spot, as a batsman, as other aspirants like Badri and Rohit and, indeed, Yuvraj; and he has to be allowed to think of himself as someone who is legitimately in the running for that no. 6 spot. If he is taken along simply as Dhoni’s understudy, then he will be constantly put into these desperate, no-win positions that we have seen him in over the last few months. If it is made clear to him that he and Yuvraj are fighting for a middle-order spot, with his keeping abilities being a bonus, then I think that will give him enormous self-confidence, while keeping Yuvi on his toes. Certainly, if you asked me my honest opinion of who the better long-term Test batting prospect is of the two, then I would pick DK ahead of Yuvi – simply because he has proved, in spite of never having as much security as Yuvi, that he can do the job at the highest level in foreign conditions. Yuvi has not proved that yet.

But if there is a case for keeping Yuvi in the 11 for Wellington, then I see none for retaining Munaf Patel, the fourth failure of the game. That third seamer’s spot is the one that is still up for grabs. In Hamilton, Munaf did a good job, and suggested he might be the answer, at least for the time being. But in Napier, he was miserable.

This suggests two things, and I think both are true in Munaf’s case. The first is that he is an on-again, off-again cricketer. When he is good, he can be very good, but it is impossible to tell which side of the bed he will get out of on any given day. In that sense, while Yuvraj may or may not be the perfect successor to Ganguly, Munaf is most certainly the perfect successor to Ajit Agarkar (except that, unlike Agarkar, Munaf can neither bat nor field). The second is that he is good when conditions suit him, and terrible when they don’t. This pitch was a graveyard for fast bowlers, true – but all the other seamers on view on both sides, even someone with as limited talent as James Franklin, kept trying. To me, it seemed like Munaf just threw in the towel. A third seamer needs to be someone who can hold his own in all conditions; he may never win a game for the team, but he should never be a liability. I think, Munaf, too often in his short career, and especially in Tests, has proven to be a liability. I therefore would definitely replace him with Balaji for Wellington. Balaji can be a real threat if conditions favor him, but he can also bowl tightly and give it a 100% if we are presented with another belter.

So I think the two worries for India continue to be the no. 6 batsman and the third seamer. But I still think that it is a tall order for New Zealand to level the series, because, unless a real green-top is prepared, I just don’t see them as having the bowling attack to pick 20 wickets. Indeed, it could be argued that NZ has the weakest bowling attack of the eight major Test teams. (South Africa’s pace trio is scary good; India and Sri Lanka have genuine variety and versatility; Australia is looking good again now that Johnson and Siddle are hitting their straps; Pakistan, if and when they ever get to play, have two quality seamers in Gul and Tanvir; England has Flintoff, who is still one of the best fast bowlers in world cricket, and others who on their day turn up for work and look briefly threatening; and the West Indies have the genuine pace of Fidel Edwards. Vettori is a good bowler, but far better suited for the one-day game, and certainly no Shane Warne). This is why it is such a travesty that the second best bowler they have ever produced, Shane Bond, is fit as a fiddle, but cannot play because of the stupid and patently unjust ban on account of ICL participation. Bond in the side would have provided a real test of Indian mettle; and again, in his absence, it is cricket that is the loser, and administrative malice and pettiness that is the cause. Why, I wonder, did NZC tow BCCI’s line on this one?

Onward, then, to Wellington. Let us hope it turns out to be a cricket match, and not just net practice for the batsmen.