|
||
Home >
Cricket >
Gallery |
Feedback | |
Of pros... and cons...
Prem Panicker
May 17. Lord's, England.
A date, and a venue, deserving of prominent sign-posting -- because on that
day, at that venue, England and Pakistan will take the field for the Test
that will flag off the ICC-sponsored 10-year cycle to crown the champion
Test team in the world.
Which makes the recently concluded Test series against Australia vitally
important, for India. At one level, it was about India -- not so long ago
battered by the Proteas at home -- learning to win at home again, and
against the unofficial world champions to boot. But at a more important
long-term level, it was about rebuilding a team that was -- thanks to the
match-fixing scandal and what, to phrase it politely, can only be called
interpersonal dyspepsia -- was in shambles.
So what, then, were the gains and losses for Indian cricket at the end of
the Australian tour?
Some of the pluses are immediate, and startlingly obvious. Number one in
that list is -- no, not VVS Laxman -- Harbhajan Singh.
Thanks to a combination of coach John Wright's perspicacity and skipper
Saurav Ganguly's obduracy and willingness to put his foot down, Harbhajan
Singh actually got to play in the national eleven -- much against the wishes
of the selectors and even some of the BCCI members. And the young offie
seized the chance in dramatic fashion to prove the point that neither
unfounded allegations of chucking, nor personal trauma, had affected the
ability and talent he had shown when he first came on the scene.
John Wright summed up the Harbhajan factor best, when he said at the end of
the tour that he was now "salivating" at the prospect of having the
off-spinner bowling in tandem with Anil Kumble. India's problem in the Test
arena has, for a long while now, stemmed from the fact that it did not have
a pair of bowlers capable of attacking and running through sides. In the
Harbhajan-Kumble duo, the side just might have found the ideal mix.
Item number two, on the credit side of the ledger, would be VVS Laxman. Who,
after years of being shoved around the board like a gambit pawn, finally
stood up for himself and demanded that he either be allowed to bat in the
middle order, or not be considered for selection at all. That was step one.
Step two was taken by Wright when he, at the first opportunity, pushed
Laxman up to the number three slot, which he regularly occupies for his
state team and where, he says, he is most comfortable.
Laxman makes for an ideal number three. Too often in the past, when India
loses a wicket early, Rahul Dravid has come in and tended to play the quiet,
waiting game. No blame attaches to him on this, given that this is what the
team management asked him to do -- the result, though, is that such caution
has allowed opposing bowling attacks to settle into dominant mode. Laxman,
on the other hand, is an aggressor by nature -- the kind of player who can,
and will, come in with a wicket going down off the first ball of the
innings, and drive the first ball he faces through the covers simply because
it is there to be hit. Laxman combines the twin virtues of scoring at speed,
and staying at the crease seemingly for life -- if he hadn't come along
when, and how, he did, Indian cricket would have needed to invent him.
Laxman's promotion has also had an unlooked for benefit -- Rahul Dravid's
demotion appears to have helped him unlock his mind, and free his game from
shackles imposed partly by himself, partly by his team. And when he plays
freely, Dravid becomes a very important component in the batting mix -- it
is surely no coincidence that the biggest partnerships in recent years, in
both Tests and one dayers, have almost inevitably featured him at one end.
That's three positives, batting-wise. Adding up to a fourth -- to wit,
Sachin Tendulkar (as and when he brings himself to realise this) is no
longer the spine of the Indian batting lineup, but merely a very important
component thereof. All along, when he walked out there with the realisation
in back of his mind that the team depended entirely on him, he has allowed
that thought to weigh on his mind and affect his batting style. The presence
of other batsmen demonstrably capable of taking the load should have the
effect of freeing Tendulkar to bat a whole lot more freely than he has been
able to in recent times -- so, chalk down yet another plus.
And before you close the books on the batting, make two small -- but
potentially important -- tick marks in there, against the names of Harbhajan
Singh and Zaheer Khan. Both bowlers have, with the bat, shown a willingness
to be combative, to not give their wickets away without a fight.
One tangential point worth mentioning is that in the Wright regime, the
batsmen have been showing a greater awareness of the fact that the single is
as much a scoring shot as the boundary. This change in mindset has been more
readily noticeable in the one-dayers -- but the signs are that it has
percolated to Test match play as well, and if that trend continues, then
India will have added a very important string to its batting bow.
Turn to the bowling -- and apart from Harbhajan and the potential return of
Anil Kumble, the only positive you can think of is the emergence of Zaheer
Khan as a frontline bowler in his own right, and not merely a stepney to be
wheeled out when Ajit Agarkar is either injured, or decides he does not want
to be "considered for selection".
As against that, there is a heap of negatives. Firstly, the opening. In the
series against Australia, Shiv Sundar Das has shown signs of coming of
age -- most notably, in the way he has been willing to put a premium on his
wicket. Set against that, is his very real weakness against the ball lifting
at him on line of the stumps -- a weakness that, in these days of global
television coverage and videographic analysis, opposing teams will be quick
to spot, and exploit. On the plus side, there is a good six weeks, followed
by a relatively easy outing against Zimbabwe, for Das to apply corrective
measures.
Across him, on the batting strip, is Sadagopan Ramesh -- a player of
undoubted talent, and suspect temperament. He was at his casual worst right
through the home series against Australia -- and at his very best when, just
ahead of the third Test, the message was finally drilled into him that it
was a case of shaping up, or being shipped out. That leaves the Indian team
one of two alternatives -- either find a way to light -- and maintain -- a
fire under Ramesh, or seek alternatives. One thing is for sure -- in a
season where India will find itself playing a lot of Test cricket, much of
it abroad, the team cannot afford an opener who does not put a price on his
wicket, and is content to throw it away with casual wafts at anything
outside off.
An equally crucial minus is the wicket-keeping. Nayan Mongia -- yet again,
for flaws of personality and temperament more than skill -- finds himself
out of favour. Sameer Dighe, tried in place of Mongia, proved an unmitigated
disaster behind the stumps -- and never mind that coach John Wright is
hugely impressed by his grit with the bat, the fact remains that a team
whose perceived weakness is not being able to bowl the opposition out twice
cannot afford valuable chances off pace and spin to go to grass. Vijay
Dahiya meanwhile was equally unimpressive with the gloves in the one-dayers.
Which means that for the team, the hunt for a classy wicket-keeper (who, in
this day and age, needs to be more than fair with the bat) is just
beginning. And candidates are pretty thin on the ground -- the names of Ajay
Ratra the Under-19 star, Reuben Paul the hard-hitting batsman-keeper from
Tamil Nadu (do note, that in the case of Paul, it is the 'batsman' that
precedes the 'keeper') and (okay, here is a potentially controversial
choice) Tilak Naidu of Karnataka are the only ones to come to mind.
Somashekhar Siriguppi's frequent elevation as Karnataka's first choice
keeper owes more to politics than to skill -- Naidu has easily the softest
hands in the ranks of Indian keepers today. Add to that the kind of batting
skill that sees him go as high as four in the strong state lineup, and it
becomes something of a surprise that his name is never once mentioned by the
selectors.
What goes against Naidu is height -- which, when you consider that Adam
Gilchrist does not hold a passport from Lilliput, smacks of specious
reasoning. And weight, of which Naidu has more than his share -- but that,
again, is Andrew Leipus territory, and cannot be a reason to not even
consider the lad. And finally, the mind -- statemates hold the opinion that
Naidu is not focussed enough, does not really apply himself enough. But
again, that is precisely where a John Wright could come in.
To continue the list of negatives, there is Ajit Agarkar, whose initial
promise has been rapidly eroded, and who increasingly is more of a gamble
than anything else. He reminds you a bit of India's Geostationery Satellite
Launch Vehicle -- all you can do, these days, is to light the fuse, stand
back, and see which way he will go.
There is, too, the question of third spinner -- and you can bet good money
that whether we play at home or abroad, there will be times when a third
regular spinner will be an option worth considering. Sarandeep Singh is
steady, and solid. But even if you discount the old-wives tale that it is
stupid to play two offies at the same time, the junior Singh is still a few
tricks shy off a full hand, at the highest level. The tricks will come in
time -- but at this point, he is by no means a finished product.
Worse, is the question of a left-arm spinner. Theoretically, if you have an
attacking, aggressive offspinner in Harbhajan and a rock-solid leg-break
bowler in Anil Kumble (who is at his best when he is sure the pressure will
be maintained at the other end), a left-arm spinner is the ideal third
string to the bow. At this point, we do not have one -- mainly because of
the policy that has seen five practitioners of the art being used in five
sequential Test matches.
On balance -- if, importantly, you keep in mind that the choice has to be a
long-term one -- the selectors could do worse than pick Murali Karthik,
give him the confidence of knowing that he is an integral component of the
side, and let him loose. Judged purely on form and skill, Karthik is the
best left-arm spin bowler in the country today -- it is crucial that the
selectors pick the lad, and persist with him.
One other major problem remains, relatively unsolved -- to wit, fielding.
During the just-ended series, it was heartening to see, finally, that there
was some attempt to man key positions with specialist fielders -- Laxman in
the slips, Das at forward short leg, Dravid at leg slip being the prime
examples. And the trio, with Ramesh supporting at silly point, lent
Harbhajan that crucial edge. Overall, though, the catching and ground
fielding standards were short of international class, and the chronic
inability to hit the stumps, or even find the keeper with the throw when it
matters, persists.
The silver lining? John Wright's reception of the news that India would not
be playing any cricket till the Zimbabwe tour: "Good, now we can have a
good, hard 15-day camp and work on a lot of the basics."
That leaves one question unasked, and unanswered -- namely, the captaincy
and batting of Saurav Ganguly and, tangentially, the role of John Wright.
Which will be looked at in a follow-up article tomorrow.
Meanwhile, a thought to leave you with: 30 years ago, India defeated the
West Indies in the Caribbean, and Indian cricket changed forever. Check out
the schedule ahead of the team over the next two years -- do you get the
feeling that the recently concluded home series against the all-conquering
Australians could be a similar watershed?
|
|
|
News: Shopping: Services: |
News | Sports | NewsLinks Marketplace | Books | Music | Hotel Reservations | Gifts | Movie Tickets Personal Homepages | Free Email | Free Messenger | Chat | Rail/Air |
|
|
© 2001 rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. |