RISING STARS TO INVEST IN
The four youngsters we have invested in over the past 5 years or more – Yuvraj, Harbhajan, Sreesanth and Raina – have all been capricious investments. Each has shown glimpses of true ability, but years after their debuts questions remain over them all. I have nonetheless suggested that they are worth persisting with, if in limited and more qualified ways. But this still leaves the question of who the long-term stars of Indian cricket will be. And it still leaves some of the glaring gaps in the Indian Test side: specifically, support acts and successors to Zaheer Khan, and the still-elusive successor to Ganguly at no. 6.
I think it is time to make three new long-term investments in this regard, and those are Virat Kohli, Munaf Patel and Ishant Sharma. Munaf has been around as long as Sreesanth, and certainly has over the years been equally disappointing. But he has received far fewer chances than Sree has, and over the past year, has developed impressive consistency as a limited overs bowler. Ishant is already part of the current Test dispensation, but at this point needs to be taken much better care of; he is just too precious a bowler to be overbowled in the manner that is happening. And it is time for Kohli to be the man we invest in as long-term successor to Ganguly.
Kohli’s case, indeed, is extremely straightforward. Of the youngsters who have been given a run in one-day cricket – Raina, Rohit and Kohli – Kohli has by far made the most of his opportunities. In limited overs over the last year, Kohli has been more than consistent, he has been phenomenal, stringing together big scores repeatedly at 3 and 4. His temperament and hunger are far superior to any of his contemporaries. Even though he came into the limelight as the bad boy of IPL-1, he in fact had already turned in big performances for Delhi in the Ranji Trophy while still part of India’s under-19 ranks, showing an ability to play 4-day cricket right from his early days. What is impressive is how quickly he has outgrown the bad boy antics to mature into a thoughtful, composed cricketer. Ray Jennings, not one to mince his words, thinks Kohli will in years to come make bowlers around the world weep, and has tipped him as a future India captain. Certainly, he has far stronger leadership credentials than Raina does. Geoff Boycott, another astute judge of batting talent who is not given to lightly praise people, also thinks highly of Kohli.
Kohli is an attacking batsman, but his strength, unlike Rohit or Raina, is that he is not a fancy one. He is a well organized batsman, and keeps it simple. The shot that he likes most is the leg-side flick, and he uses it to keep working runs over; but he is able to change gears and accelerate fiercely when required. He was given a working over by the West Indian quicks in the couple of Tests he played there, but I think has a fundamentally better technique against the short ball than either Raina or Rohit. And he adds immense value in the field. One of the things that he does need to do is focus on his bowling. I have talked in an earlier post about the utility of having a part-timer who can bowl slow-medium (like Ganguly, Sanjay Bangar or Mohinder Amarnath), as that opens up the option of playing either 3 seamers or 2 spinners in the frontline bowling attack and provides the team management more flexibility. If Kohli can develop into the bowler than Ganguly was – good enough to give the captain 10 overs in a Test innings regardless of conditions, but capable of nipping it about and getting a couple of wickets on green tracks – then he will really add value to the side. Right now, he is not as useful a bowler as he might be, and that needs to be the task he sets himself this year. Regardless, if we play 6 frontline batsmen in Tests, he needs to be our no. 6. Judging him on the basis of a couple of ordinary Tests in the West Indies, as the selectors did, was poor judgment, as was the decision to leave him out of the party to tour England. But not even giving him a chance at the Oval after Raina had looked so abysmal in Trent Bridge and Birmigham suggests something close to nepotism.
Ishant’s case is far more straightforward, because he is already a part of the Indian Test dispensation. There is no question that he is a unique bowler in the Indian context. He is not an out and out quick, though he can hit the 140s consistently when fit and in rhythm. But his height and his ability to hit the deck and seam it around make him a unique commodity. What is even more impressive – similar to Kohli, but different from his fast bowling contemporaries like Sreesanth and R.P. Singh – is his temperament. He has always been a game trier, and has always given 110%, not just while bowling, but even with his limited yet invaluable tail-end batting. His support to V.V.S. Laxman in that sensational Mohali chase against Australia was one of the highlights of the year for Indian cricket.
When he burst on the scene 3 years ago, it looked like Ishant would be one of the three future fast bowling stars of world cricket, along with Morne Morkel and Stuart Broad. While Broad is more of a swing bowler, all three share certain characteristics – their height, aggression, their ability to come at the batsmen, and the way in which they complement the senior strike bowlers in their respective teams, Steyn, Anderson and Zaheer. All three went through second-year blues, showing alarming losses of form and having injury problems after their initial promising burst. Morkel and Broad have come through their difficult spells, and how are integral members of their respective bowling outfits.
Ishant has also shown signs all year of coming into his own again. But his problem is that it is not clear how long Zaheer will be around to give him cover, and the rest of the bowling attack that works around him is much weaker than either South Africa’s or England’s. This means that, at age 22, it seems already like Ishant needs to lead India’s attack. Certainly, he is likely to be our strike bowler in Australia, with Zak’s fitness in doubt. And that means that how he is managed becomes critical.
Broad in particular has a huge advantage in this regard, being a part of England’s professional management system. Ishant on the other hand just gets bowled whenever he is around to bowl; and because he is such a team player, he shows up to do the job. Arm chair critics go on about how his pace has dropped off; yet he bowled an astonishing 173 overs over 4 Tests in England. That is not the way to treat a key fast bowler, especially one who is still young and whose body is yet to reach peak fitness. There are no signs that Ishant’s treatment will become any better in the near future, since N. Srinivasan has emphatically said that professional cricketers should know enough to take care of themselves. In other words – don’t come looking to the BCCI for help, or for professional player management.
This is a tragedy, because given India’s limited bowling resources, it is essential for Ishant to be at peak fitness every time he plays. Ishant’s role in the side – regardless of Zak’s availability or fitness – needs to be as the main strike bowler. He is one who can bowl at 140-145 and jag it around. But that means that he needs to be used as a strike bowler: in short, 4-5 over spells, brought on to take wickets, with other bowlers bowling around him to keep things quiet or create pressure. He is still young, but has been around for nearly 4 years now; he is ready to play a central role in this side. The question is, will he be managed in a way that allows him to fulfill his potential, and play the role he is capable of playing?
I think that Munaf Patel has a role to play in answering this question. He is the third young player that I tip as central to India’s future. Ishant and Kohli are relatively unproblematic choices for this category: Ishant has looked a star ever since he has burst on to the scene, while Kohli’s growth has been both steady and spectacular. Munaf, however, has been one of the consistent underperformers in Indian cricket over the years. Yet there are a couple of reasons why I think the time has come to invest faith in him and give him more responsibilities.
One is simply based on performance. Along with Kohli, Munaf has quite simply been the most improved Indian cricketer over the past 12 months. Most of that improvement has been in limited overs, but that is because he has not received many chances in the longer version of the game. In the odd Test match that he has played – such as at Dominica – he looked amongst the most threatening of India’s bowlers, even if his figures didn’t reflect it. For Kohli to be left out of the Oval Test for Raina was bad enough. But Munaf was on tour throughout the England series and didn’t get a look in even once. There is no excuse for that, this was simply egregious.
Performance aside, Munaf has the potential to play a particular role in the Test bowling attack, which is that of the stock bowler. We keep looking for the glamorous bowlers, the ones who can bowl really fast or swing it around wildly like Sreesanth. But every bowling attack needs someone who can give it control. Occasionally, teams are lucky to have a stock bowler who is also a strike bowler – Glenn McGrath is a prime example from recent times, as is Andrew Flintoff. And Zak has played that role for India. And often, the stock bowler’s role is played by the lead spinner, such as what Kumble did for India or Murali for Sri Lanka, regardless of whether or not they were taking wickets. As mentioned in my previous post, Harbhajan does not have that ability to double up as stock and strike bowler: when he thinks control, he turns into an ordinary, flat bowler, and our interests are best served when he plays an out-and-out attacking role. This means that, in Zak’s absence, we don’t have a single bowler who can combine the two roles that the leader of an attack needs to play: being the strike bowler who can take wickets, but also being the person the captain can turn to in order to keep things under control so that others can go flat out.
I think Munaf can play the latter role. One of his tragedies is that he is constantly being measured against the expectations that existed of him when he burst onto the scene: he was seen as the answer to India’s search for a genuine fast bowler. But his strengths as they have developed over time are not about genuine pace. And instead of constantly touting that as a failure, we should recognize the strengths that he does have. He is not going to be our version of Brett Lee; he is not even our version of Glenn McGrath. But he can be our version of Angus Fraser. And while the glamour-obsessed Indian cricket pundit / selector / fan doesn’t hold much stock in the Frasers of the world, our bowling attack desperately needs someone who can play that role. I think we need to invest in Munaf to play that role – that, as with Kohli, needs to be a judgment call. These are two judgment calls the selectors need to make this year, and they are both critical, I feel, to India coming back to be a top team in Test cricket.
0 comments:
Post a Comment