[As it happens, this is my 100th post on this site. It has taken 5 years to get here, it is really not much of a typical blog in that I know it has a limited readership and I don’t do well about responding to comments etc. But it has provided me an outlet for my thoughts, and I am grateful to those of few who have tuned in occasionally, either leaving comments or just reading. Five years ago, it seemed like Sachin Tendulkar’s career was about to end (which was the subject of my very first blog post). In those five years, Indian cricket has plummeted depths and scaled heights. Even though I don’t know most of you and you don’t know me, I am grateful to have shared this voyage with you all in some small way. T20 has thrown cricket open to the fan who views it merely as entertainment. It is good for me to know that there are some of us who still love it for the great sport that it is, and who will support, rejoice and lament in the Indian cricket team in good times and bad].
YOUNGSTERS NO MORE, BUT HOW GOOD ARE THEY?
So far in my dossiers, I have analyzed the core of the Indian cricket team: Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, and the immediate next leadership generation of Sehwag, Zaheer, Dhoni and Gambhir. I think there are concerns here especially with the fraying bodies of Viru and Zak, who have been so central to India’s rise to the top. But otherwise, we do have 7 top-quality cricketers here, who would form the core of an outstanding cricket team. The question now concerns who fills in the gaps; and, given that 5 of these 7 are in the latter stages of their career, also who exists to fill their shoes in the long term.
Even before we go to youngsters coming through the ranks, it is worth considering what those gaps are. Three are quite obvious: a replacement for Sourav Ganguly at no. 6; a replacement for Anil Kumble as the lead spinner; and a reliable new ball partner for Zaheer. It is understandable that no one has filled Kumble’s shoes: those are very big shoes to fill. But, given the amount of batting talent that purportedly exists in the country, it is shocking that 3 years after his retirement, no one has really claimed Ganguly’s no. 6 Test batting spot yet. It is equally an indictment of the system that Zak doesn’t have a reliable new ball partner.
The four people to consider in this category are: Yuvraj Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Sreesanth and Suresh Raina. Somehow in the media’s common sense, three of these (except Harbhajan, who is often referred to as a senior member of the side) are still called “youngsters”. Yuvraj is hitting 30, so the only reason he is a youngster is because he still hasn’t established himself as a Test batsman, in spite of having made his Test debut 8 years ago. But it is important to recognize that Sreesanth and Raina are no longer youngsters either, both having made their debuts back in 2005-06. If after playing 6 years of international cricket they still haven’t established themselves as reliable members of the side, then one has to start considering how much longer a rope they should have.
And that is the common denominator with all four of these players: they have had exceptionally long ropes. Ultimately, when there are a handful of key spots in a side to be filled, filling them with the best person has to be a matter of judgment. There can be some element of luck and trial and error: it may be possible to take a punt on someone and have it work unexpectedly. But these four are not punts: they have been long term investments, taken by successive captains, team managements and selection committees. They have been trusted, effectively, with the future of Indian cricket. This means that it is time to evaluate whether the right choices and the right investments have been made, or whether it is time to change course.
One thing that is definite about all four of these players is their enormous natural ability. In a country where natural talent and style counts for much more than temperament or substance, this was always going to be an advantage for them. But the consequence of such long term investments, of course, is that other people miss out. Who knows now whether Mohammad Kaif, who never got the chances Yuvraj did in spite of being a more solid Test batsman, mightn’t have developed into Ganguly’s successor had he been the chosen one? Or whether Murali Kartik mightn’t have been a better spinner to succeed Kumble? It is unlikely that Kaif or Kartik will ever come close to an India cap again, but now Raina is effectively keeping the likes of Virat Kohli and Subramaniam Badrinath out of the side, just as Sreesanth, through the England series, kept Munaf Patel out. Those are choices that are being made, and they have consequences. The question is: are they the right choices?
I will make a basic argument in this post, and it will be a surprising one to those who have followed my tirades against Bhaj over the years. And this is that these four players fall into two clear categories: Harbhajan and Sreesanth on the one hand, and Yuvraj and Raina on the other.
There is no question that Yuvi and Raina are outstanding limited overs players. (Well, Yuvi is. Raina is an outstanding T20 player and a decent 50-over player). But neither is a Test player. Both have played the occasional good Test knock. (Indeed, Yuvraj has played two outstanding Test knocks: his 169 against Pakistan in Bangalore, and the supporting role he played to Tendulkar in the famous Chennai run chase against England). Of course, these are two knocks over 8 (albeit interrupted) years of Test cricket; and, crucially, both have come in India. Raina impressed on debut, again on flat sub-continental tracks, but hasn’t even played the occasional defining knock like Yuvi has. Indeed, Yuvi and Raina are living proof that it is much harder, perhaps even impossible, to transition from being good limited overs players to being good Test players, than it is the other way round.
Bhaj and Sree on the other hand are immensely frustrating talents, and sometimes one feels like slapping them. (Sreesanth in particular is so infuriating that even Bhaj feels like slapping him). But – and this is the key point – they are proven match-winners in Tests. And this is the fundamental difference. One wishes that they were consistent and that they had their heads screwed on. Maybe that will still happen, maybe it never will. But on their day, even with loosely screwed heads, they can be as good as the best in the business. It is not clear that Yuvraj and Raina, in Tests, ever can.
Sreesanth’s skills are simple and straightforward. He is a natural swing bowler. There is nothing fancy about his swing: he doesn’t have the craft, cunning and variation of a Zaheer Khan, or the ability to dangle the ball on a string and make it stop in mid-air before wobbling in four directions like Wasim Akram. But he can swing it; not that many people in the world can. And he can swing it both ways, again not a skill that too many have. In that sense, as a classic, conventional swing bowler, he is the closest parallel there is in world cricket to Jimmy Anderson. Indeed, when he is in rhythm (and that’s a big when), he can be as quick as Anderson too, and is capable of hitting the low-140s. The second thing that is wonderful about Sreesanth is his amazing seam position, possibly the best in the game. Good swing bowlers can trouble the best of batsmen, and this is why Sree always does need to remain in the picture, certainly as a Test bowler. His inconsistencies mean that he can never be a certainty, and could on any given day be a liability. And again, with a 4-bowler attack, the risk of playing him multiplies. But he is too good to give up on entirely, and if we were open to a 5-bowler attack then it would be conceivable to play him as an out-and-out attacking option with some insurance in case he was to have a bad day.
Much the same can be said of Harbhajan Singh. At his best, he has enormous ability and many subtle variations. He himself will point to the 400 Test wickets he has taken, and it is true that so many wickets have to speak to quality somewhere. More than that, many of those wickets have been match-winning performances: when Bhaj is on a roll, he can be very dangerous. The frustration with Bhaj is that often, when the team needs him, he fails to turn up. And, as someone who is now leading the spin attack, and who is often looked to as both a senior bowler and as someone who needs to play multiple roles depending on the context of the game, this makes him a potential liability. Now it seems like he has reached a point, given his axing for the England one-dayers, where he cannot even take his place in the side for granted anymore.
I think the truth about Bhaj is somewhere more nuanced than these extreme positions, though I myself have taken very critical positions of him in the past. The fact is, Bhaj is a very good attacking spinner, the best we have. (Ojha is a good spinner, but primarily a defensive one; Mishra can be attacking, but also erratic; Ashwin has potential, but so far he has primarily impressed in limited overs and it is not clear how good he will be if he has to bowl 50 overs in an innings). But Bhaj is not a good defensive spinner. And the really good spinners are those who can shift back and forth between those roles, depending on conditions and the state of the game. This was the genius of a Kumble or a Murali: even on flat batting tracks when the opposition was wracking up 500, there wouldn’t be cheap runs on offer from these two, so usually the captain would only have to worry about one end. And if there was an opening, both could shift from being defensive to attacking at the snap of a finger. Indeed, there was constant aggression even when they were bowling defensively. (Shane Warne, the other great bowler of this spinning trinity, of course rarely had to bowl defensively given the quality of the attack around him).
And that’s where Bhaj’s limitations lie. For one thing, he is a confidence bowler, and so falls into a groove or a rut very quickly in his spell. If he is in a defensive mindset, he is rarely able to switch out of it or change gears. And, unlike most spinners, Bhaj is a very poor defensive bowler. His idea of defensive bowling is to bowl flat and quick. But he is not a conventionally big spinner of the ball, and when at his best relies on flight and bounce to snare batsmen. When bowling flat and quick, then, Bhaj turns into little more than a slow medium bowler without variations. He can be milked, and he is rarely threatening. Indeed, this is often the mode he reverts to in limited overs cricket, and he is not a good limited overs bowler. (Someone like Ashwin offers far more variations. Bhaj has variations, but they are rarely on display when he is in a defensive mindset).
The other limitation is that, temperamentally, unlike Kumble or Zaheer, Bhaj is not the leader of an attack. He was helped enormously through most of his career by having Kumble at the other end, and even of late, has always looked better when he is bowling in tandem with another spinner. (When the Aussies toured for instance, Bhaj looked constantly threatening when he had Ojha keeping things quiet at the other end. Ojha himself didn’t pick too many wickets, but in this sense he played a crucial role in freeing Bhaj up to bowl his attacking best).
Once again, what this means, as with Zak and Sree, is that Bhaj can be a real asset as part of a 5-man attack, which would allow us to play 2 spinners at all times and allow Bhaj to play the role of attacking spinner. But as part of a 4-man attack, he is always a gamble, especially against good batting sides and / or in conditions that don’t favor spin. Given how much his batting has improved, a case can be made for Bhaj to bat at 7, if not all the time, then at least some of the time. I agree with Dhoni that Bhaj shouldn’t have the expectations of an all-rounder thrust upon him. But I also think that the expectations that he is Kumble’s successor as leader of the attack are misplaced. As a senior member of the side, he does need to step up to the plate and take on more responsibility. But I think that he is actually better equipped to take on additional responsibilities with the bat than he is to play outside of his comfort zone as a bowler. As he moves into his 30s, I think we would do well to dispense with him from limited overs altogether, since Ashwin is proving a more than adequate successor. Instead, he should just be made to play the role of attacking spin bowler, and should remain open to batting at 7 should the team need him to. He could still have a big role to play for India if used right, especially with a series in Australia coming up.
Yuvraj and Raina are trickier cases. Yuvi in particular is now basking in the glow of his World Cup heroics, which probably means that he is back to being no. 1 in line for the Test no. 6 spot. I think he has a stronger case than Raina for that spot, and there’s no question that when in form and confident, he is a colossal presence, especially in the shorter formats. And the most exciting development of the past year has been the development of his limited overs bowling skills, as he has reliably filled the role of 5th bowler and turned into the all-rounder that we so desperately needed.
But I still don’t think he is a Test batsman, and in giving him incessant chances to prove himself in that role we have prevented technically more qualified players from getting a chance to establish themselves. Quite simply, I don’t know of a single limited-overs specialist who has gone on to become a good Test batsman: both technically and mentally, this is a very difficult and possibly impossible transition to make. In Yuvraj’s and Raina’s cases this has been exacerbated by the fact that throughout their careers they have in fact played very little long-form cricket at any level. Because they are such integral members of India’s limited overs sides, and because India is playing all the time, neither of them has played a single domestic season from start to finish. (Unlike say Rohit Sharma, who having been dropped from the Indian side, just played for Mumbai all of last season. I think that has helped him immensely, because it has put him in contexts where he has had to play long innings, where quick 30s and 40s are not good enough, and I think that he will be a better player for India across all formats consequent to this experience). So Yuvraj keeps getting into the Test side on the back on strong limited overs performances, is found wanting, loses confidence in his game, then struggles in limited overs which is his strength. Until he regains form and confidence and the whole cycle repeats itself.
This is why I think it is time to just think of Yuvi as a limited overs specialist. This is especially with a series in Australia coming up, because I think Yuvraj and Raina, even when they play well in Tests, are text-book definitions of flat-track bullies. A case in point was the last time we went to Australia. The Test before we left was when Yuvraj made that 169 against Pakistan. Yet in Australia he was a walking wicket. This was not because of poor form: technically, Yuvraj just did not have it in himself to negotiate Australian bowlers in their home conditions. I don’t see how it will be any different this time.
Of these four talents, all of them frustrating, the most overrated in my opinion is Raina. His vulnerabilities against the short ball and the moving ball have been all too well documented, and his performance in England was simply an embarrassment, one that should ensure that he does play Test cricket again for a good long time. Indeed, while I can at least see a rationale for Yuvraj being given more chances, I think that Raina, unequivocally, cannot be considered as anything other than a limited overs player.
Even as a limited overs player, I think Raina is overrated. People ooh and aah over his batting, but if one looks empirically at his performance over the past year, what does one see? A person who, going into the World Cup, was not even a part of the starting 11 in India’s one-day side. He only got a chance in the quarter-finals because Yusuf Pathan failed to get going. The sum total of his contributions then were two innings of 30-odd. They were both good innings, but hardly substantial ones. (Indeed, Yusuf himself had made a couple of 20s and 30s until then, which was considered a “failure”). While Yusuf’s 20s and 30s saw him dropped from the side so hard that he couldn’t even get into the squad in England after all our injuries, Raina was rewarded for his 30s by being made captain of the side in the West Indies! The double standards here simply boggle the mind. I don’t know what it is that makes Raina the blue-eyed boy of Indian cricket. Is it the fact that he plays for CSK, and India’s board, chairman of selectors and captain are all CSK men? Is it because he is friends with Dhoni? It has to be something like that, because certainly his cricketing abilities don’t warrant the treatment he has received.
The biggest problem with Raina is not his technique: Ganguly and Steve Waugh were both technically wanting against the short ball, but that didn’t prevent them from becoming colossal contributors to their teams in all forms of the game. It is temperament. Raina does not have the mental strength, on most days, to bat for more than 40 balls. He then loses concentration and invariably throws it away. In T20s, he is good enough to make 50 or 60 in those 40 balls. In ODIs, he is good enough to make the occasional telling 30. (Which, when compared to the big 100s Virat Kohli has been stringing together over the past year in one-days, is actually a pittance). In Tests, he is good enough to make single digits, or, in that infamous 2nd innings at the Oval, 0. In any of these cases, it is very rare that he has really shown the ability to concentrate much beyond 40 balls. And of course, he has never had to. He has never had to prove himself even in 4-day domestic cricket. He got into the Indian side on the strength of under-19 heroics and one strong Challenger Trophy performance. He made his comeback on the basis of IPL heroics. And the kindest reason one can give for his continued presence in the side is that those who keep selecting him are delusional. Because the only other explanation would be nepotism.
Don’t get me wrong: I think Raina has an important role to play in the Indian one-day side, as our specialist no. 7. The role of the finisher is an important one in 50-over cricket, and Raina, unlike many others, has the ability to get going without needing much time to get his eye in. Given Yuvraj’s increasingly reliable bowling, we have the luxury in one-days of playing a 7th frontline batsman, something we don’t have in Tests without seriously compromising our bowling. And Raina has the ability to be a dangerous finisher for us, playing the role that Ajay Jadeja briefly played in the late 90s, or that Lance Klusener played so well for South Africa. And that, amongst contemporary Indian players, only Yusuf Pathan has the ability to play. I think effectively, Raina should be fighting with Yusuf for that spot. Given Yusuf’s own inconsistencies, I have no problems with Raina getting first preference for it. But he is no Test batsman. He is not even good enough to be a full-fledged middle order one-day batsman, someone who would have to control the middle overs before accelerating. There are many others who are better middle-order batsmen: Yuvraj and Dhoni have been for years, Kohli certainly is, Rohit has always been on the verge of fulfilling his potential, and even Badrinath or Manoj Tiwary, if they are given a fifth of the chances Raina has gotten, will I am sure do a far better job than him at 4, 5 or 6.
Of the four who are youngsters no more, let us keep Bhaj and Sree for Tests, and Yuvi for limited overs. And let Raina prove himself with consistent performances before he is given the kind of royal treatment that he has received.
0 comments:
Post a Comment