Thoughts before Perth

While all the pundits are writing India off and looking forward to another 4-0 whitewash, I am going to stick my neck out and say that we have a 40-60 chance of coming back and leveling the series. This is for two reasons. First, both the WACA (in spite of its speed and bounce) and the Adelaide Oval have less lateral movement than Melbourne and Sydney, which should suit our batsmen, who were showing some signs of form in the second innings at the SCG. And second: I still believe that, unlike England, Australia is a flawed team. Their top order is vulnerable, as are Ponting and Clarke early in their innings. And if our batting can come into some form, then Australia’s inexperienced attack, now without James Pattinson, will have to show what their Plan B is. A comeback won’t be easy, but it is possible.

What is necessary, however, is some smart thinking, and that has been in seriously short supply. In England, we were completely outplayed. Here, we have simply been outthought. Dhoni’s captaincy has been a disaster, especially when contrasted to Michael Clarke’s, and Duncan Fletcher seems intent on getting himself a world record three whitewashes, something not even a Bangladesh coach has managed. But none of our so-called cricket pundits and experts seems to have much by way of ideas either.

Indeed, the only idea I have seen floating around is to bring Rohit Sharma in, as if he is some sort of messiah, and the only debate has been whether it should be at the expense of Kohli, Laxman or Dravid. Those who say one of the latter two should go – and this includes many of our former players, not a single one of whom has achieved half as much as either of these have for India – claim that this is to “build for the future”. That is such a ridiculous cliché. What is this “future” we are building for? The biggest series in the world for us is Australia in Australia. And the Border-Gavaskar Trophy can still be retained. The future is now. It’s one thing if Kohli offers us a better chance of winning in Perth than Dravid or Laxman, but he doesn’t. I think he will be an excellent Test batsman one day, but this weekend shouldn’t be the time we punt on him becoming so.

But more than that, I don’t think that Rohit is the answer to our problems. Sure, he’s a talented bat. But that talent has primarily been on display in limited overs cricket, and generally on flat tracks. The one time he was confronted with a barrage of short-pitched bowling was in the T20 World Cup in England, and he looked woefully inadequate, as bad as Suresh Raina. (And that’s saying something). How is someone who cannot play short-pitched bowling in limited overs cricket going to succeed in a Test debut at the fastest and bounciest ground in the world? The one thing Rohit had coming into this series was form. But it is now 3 weeks since he played in a match situation, and form is an ephemeral thing. The runs that he made back in November in one-days against the West Indies count for nothing in telling us what he can or cannot do against the Aussies at Perth.

Rather than simply say Jai Shri Ram and throw Rohit to the wolves, an intelligent response would be to analyze what our problems are and see how we can counter them. The two biggest problems, alas, can’t be fixed before Perth. One is Dhoni. I think his captaincy has to end, but it’s not going to end tomorrow, so unfortunately we are stuck with him for now. And the second is the refusal to play five bowlers, which is always, in any condition, going to be our best bet for winning matches. But Dhoni is unwilling to do that when our batsman are in form, so he’s not going to do so now. So the following thoughts are based on a realistic assessment of what we can and should do at Perth.

Here are our problems:

- Our openers are not giving us a start. On wickets abroad, this is critical, and we need our middle order to be cushioned against the new ball. All our strong performances abroad, whether from 2008-10 when Gambhir and Sehwag were in peak form, or in 2003-4 when Aakash Chopra provided such a wonderful foil for Viru, have been based around strong starts. Gambhir ran into some form in Sydney, but Viru’s methods are not working on these pitches against the lines and lengths the Aussies are bowling. Yet Viru remains, along with Laxman, one of the two batsmen most likely to actually win us matches. (They have done so far more often than Dravid or Tendulkar). So this is something we need to figure out, especially since one cannot ask Viru to change his style of play.

- Dravid is looking scratchy at 3. Temperamentally, he remains the one batsman capable of gritting it out even when not looking pretty. But in this sort of form, with a flimsy opening pair ahead of him, he is not a wall. This means that, between Sehwag’s unsuccessful methods and Dravid’s scratchy form, our middle order risks getting exposed way too soon.

- We don’t have a lower middle order that can marshal the tail. Dhoni of course is a disaster, but Kohli doesn’t have the experience either. And Rohit can’t be expected to. This means that we are in a situation where the first 2 or 3 wickets are always waiting to happen, and once we are 4-down, we are effectively all out, in spite of Ashwin’s useful batting down the order. Any scores of substance depend entirely on a Dravid - Tendulkar or a Tendulkar – Laxman partnership. And indeed, our two 200+ scores have been built solely on the basis of one or the other. When such a partnership doesn’t happen, we don’t get 200.

- Ashwin has disappointed with the ball. He is a good, talented spinner. But he is still learning how to bowl in Australia. In Aussie conditions, it is very important for the spinner to be able to take on the roll of stock bowler. But Ashwin is of the mindset where he is trying to get a wicket with every ball. That is actually a T20 mentality, and it is hampering him, because in the process he ends up doing too much and losing consistency. Being a stock bowler doesn’t mean bowling defensively. On the contrary, it means tossing the ball up consistently, slowing it down, and maintaining good lines just outside off-stump. He needs to be the bowler the captain can turn to in order to bowl long spells, so that the quicks can bowl in short bursts in the middle overs at the Aussie middle order.

In terms of solutions, Ashwin is the easiest: I would persist with him at Perth, which means we go into the side with the same bowling unit as Sydney. This is not because he is a better batsman than Pragyan Ojha: if you are playing only 4 bowlers, then you have to be sure they are the four best available, and batting abilities cannot cloud the decision. It is because I think that, if he has learned his lessons from Sydney, then he can actually be a huge factor for us in Perth. With his height, if he can keep it consistent and keep tossing it up, he will get bounce on this wicket. And that will make him a very difficult customer to face. I see him potentially being a big factor in this Test match.

In terms of the batting line-up, I see the need for only one change in personnel, but a few changes in strategy. Kohli has to go. But I would replace him, not with Rohit, but with his Bombay teammate Ajinkya Rahane.

I have taken issue with Rahane’s selection for this tour because he has hardly played any cricket over the past couple of months, and I felt Abhinav Mukund would have been the better bet on form. (This lack of cricket is an indication of the poor player management that bedevils our system. He has basically spent the entire domestic season carrying drinks for the national team. This would never have happened in England, where players who are on the bench are released to play domestic cricket if they are not going to play. For Rahane to sit on the bench through the ODIs against the West Indies was particularly egregious, since he ended up getting a single meaningless hit at the end of the series. If the selectors knew he was part of their plans for Australia – and they did, since the team had been selected by then – he should have been playing 4-day cricket for Bombay instead. Someone like Robin Uthappa could have carried the drinks just as proficiently).

However, I do have great belief in Rahane’s talent and ability. He does have some weaknesses around off-stump, and can push at deliveries that could be left alone – a deficiency shared by Mukund and many Indians, a function of growing up on Indian tracks, and something one can grow out of. But I was extremely impressed by the technique he showed against quick bowling in England. Simply put, man for man, I have more faith in Rahane’s ability to handle quick, short pitched bowling on a bouncy track than I do Rohit’s.

But it is not just in terms of ability that Rahane scores over Rohit. It is also in terms of the balance he lends to the side, because this would allow a necessary rejigging of the batting order. I would have Rahane open with Gambhir, move Viru down to 3, Dravid to 5 and Laxman to 6. I think this would protect both Viru and Dravid.

Rahane’s job should be simple – he should be asked to do what Akaash Chopra did in 2003-4, which is to just see off the first 15 overs. Anything above that is a bonus. I don’t care if he just makes 20, and if the score is 40 when the 1st wicket falls. If Viru can walk in after the first drinks break, and if the Aussie new ball bowlers have been denied an early breakthrough, then it will be an entirely different ball game.

Viru changed Test batsmanship by inverting the logic that the opener has to accumulate, so that the middle order can blaze away. But that inversion worked in an era where new ball bowlers tended to be, bar the odd exception, in the McGrath / Pollock seam bowler mold. Against genuinely quick swing bowlers who pitch the ball up, we need to revert to the strategy of having openers who can see off the new ball, so that the middle order can attack. Because against such a swing-oriented attack, seeing off the first hour is absolutely key, and can make the difference between a score of 175 and 450.

If Rohit was to play, then basically all the structural problems that have beset us so far will still be facing us. Viru will be a walking wicket at the top of the order; a struggling Dravid will have little cover; and Tendulkar is likely to be walking in to bat in the first hour of play. Australia will not be challenged in their thinking in the least, and can stick to the plans that have worked so well for them. All we will be doing is hoping against hope that Rohit, miraculously, and in defiance of his well-known weakness against the short ball, will somehow be our savior. Champion teams are not built by waiting for such acts of providence.

On the other hand, if Rahane comes in at the top of the order, we can adopt a different approach, and force the Aussies to think differently. There also ends up being a structure to the batting order, which each person in the side having a specific role to play, and the conditions in which he is most likely to realize that role.

So: in such a situation, we would have Rahane and Gambhir at the top of the order to see off the new ball. With the expectation, at least, from Rahane that he negotiates the first hour, from Gambhir that tries to play through a session and get 40-50. So that Viru would walk in against a first or second change bowler, and Sachin not before the afternoon (if we bat first). This would allow Viru and Sachin to play their natural, attacking games, with some kind of a foundation behind them. In case that doesn’t work out and there is still a collapse, there will still be the experience of Dravid and Laxman to bail the team out. If it does work out, then Dravid and Laxman, at 5 and 6, remain the two best players in the side to bat with the tail and turn a good position into an excellent one. Dhoni’s role would be as Australia’s 12th man, since he isn’t doing anything useful for the Indian cause. (His only consolation is that he is a better keeper than his Aussie counterpart, which shows what an embarrassment Haddin is behind the stumps). And then there would be a useful bowling quartet, all of whom will get purchase and enjoy bowling at Perth.

With a little thought, a little intelligence, and a little creativity, we have the ability to push back in this series. We have only to think back to Headingley 2002, which in my mind was the greatest Test win by an Indian team, because we played a comprehensive game to outplay a strong opposition, in conditions that were far more favorable to England than to us, simply through intelligent and creative leadership. (Ganguly, in that game, rejected conventional wisdom, went in with two spinners on a green top because they were our two best bowlers, and moved Viru up to open as an attacking move, not as a move of desperation as is usually the case. The rest is history). Calcutta 2001 was more stirring, but that was a game won by superhuman individual performances. If we sit and wait for those, then against a strong bowling attack led by an imaginative captain, we don’t stand a chance. Playing Rohit, as everyone is advocating, speaks to the sit-back-try-someone-hope-for-the-best-maybe-he’ll-click approach. If our approach is based on thought, and not just hope and prayer, then the Border-Gavaskar Trophy could yet remain in our hands.