India has a problem -- and its name is Zimbabwe.
I've just spent half the evening watching Adam Gilchrist massacre the Zimbabwean bowling at Hobart, to the tune of 172 runs off 126 deliveries -- and each time Gilchrist hit a 4 (there were 13) or a six (there were three, including two off successive balls), I kept thinking uh-oh.
To see why, you need to look at Gilchrist's batting record; since the two teams have just been through a Test series, and since that provides the closest chronological indicator, look at those figures:
In the 1999-2000 series against India in Australia, Gilchrist had scores of 0, 43, 78, 55 and 45 not out, coming in at number seven in a series Australia dominated from the get go.
He next squared up to India in India, in 2000-2001. In the first innings of the first Test at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai, he played the innings that won Australia the match: Coming in at 5/99, he added 197 with Mathew Hayden; Gilchrist himself was out with the score on 326, of which his contribution was a blistering 122 off 112 runs.
Once Harbhajan Singh got going in Kolkatta, everything changed -- Gilchrist ended the series with a scoreline of 0, 0, 1 and 1.
Don't hold that against him, though -- that was a magic series.
By late 2002, Steve Waugh had anointed Gilchrist the best batsman in the world; in 2003, he appeared hell bent on living up to that billing. Kicking off the year with a 133 against England at the SCG, he moved to the West Indies for a four Test series in which his scores included 77, 101 not out, and 65. He then blasted a 113 not out against Zimbabwe at the WACA to end the year; during the 12 month period, he had taken his average from an impressive 56.86 at the end of 2002 to a near incredible (remember his position in a very strong batting lineup) 60.25 at the end of the Zimbabwe series.
Then India arrived -- and Gilchrist recorded scores of 0 at Brisbane, 29 and 43 at Adelaide, 14 at the MCG and 6 and 4 at the SCG. In the process, his average dipped five points, to 55.6.
In ten innings starting with the Kolkatta Test, Gilchrist has scored 98 at 9.8. To say India has had the wood on the destructive batsman might seem a statement touched with hubris, but consider this:
Gilchrist averages 61.18 against England; 50.3 against New Zealand, 64.33 against Pakistan; 94.33 against South Africa, 58.11 against the West Indies and 133.00 against Zimbabwe; that is, over 50 against all major Test playing nations, which mirrors his career average of 55.6.
Against India, though, his average is more in line with a number seven's -- just 29.4.
India managed to keep up that pressure in the first encounter between the two teams in the VB Series -- Gilchrist had scored 34 off 34 when Ajit Agarkar took him out with a clever slower ball the batsman slogged for Irfan Pathan at deep backward square to hold well. And he wouldn't have got even those runs -- in the 5th over, Pathan produced a lovely away swinger that pitched off and seamed away, to defeat his drive and find the edge only for Dravid to spill behind the stumps.
It has been no accident. While Harbhajan Singh was his nemesis in chief in India two years ago (the offie took him out thrice in four innings), in Australia Gilchrist has fallen once apiece to the three seamers Zaheer, Agarkar and Irfan, and thrice to Kumble.
Throughout, the Indians have had a plan (thank Bruce Reid), and bowled to it (thank Zaheer, Ajit, Irfan, Anil).
It consisted simply of denying the batsman his pet shots -- no ball pitched up around off to drive down the ground, nothing short and wide outside off to blast through and over point, nothing full on middle and leg to flick over the onside field, nothing short on the stumps to pull.
Irfan and Zaheer have focused mainly on going wide of the crease, angling in just back of length on off, and taking the ball away, thus drawing the batsman forward but not letting him drive. Agarkar, the right hander, has stayed over the wicket but bowled the same length, and cramped Gilchrist by bending the ball back in the air, or bringing it back off the seam. And Kumble has looked to bowl off, to off and middle, using loop to finagle the length, and variations of the leg break, googly and top-spinner to keep the batsman guessing.
Plus, invariably, the Indians have kept either a shortish cover or mid off, and a shortish midwicket or mid on, in place to deny him the singles he takes to rotate strike.
It has been a bowling performance worth noting; one more unremarked, but remarkable, example of the thoughtful way the Indians have gone about this Australian tour.
Zimbabwe -- especially Heath Streak -- took a leaf out of that same book in the first match-up against Australia at the SCG. They denied him his pet scoring shots, he ended up with 34 off 44 deliveries; they denied him singles or kept him off strike, as witness the fact that his dismissal came in the 19th over.
Today, they lost the plot completely -- they could not have fed him better if Gilchrist had prescribed his own diet. Overpitched deliveries to drive and flick, short ones to cut and pull, full tosses to hit at will -- they provided it all, and in the process gave a batsman who, being down, should have been nailed down a second wind.
In two days, when India takes on Australia, it will have to do all the hard work, all over again, against the mercurial opener, and if Gilly pulls off a blinder, you'll know who to thank.
PS: Zimbabwe is just about to begin its response -- you reckon Zimbabwe will make it a double and bowl Brett Lee back into form?