Boring and defensive - which team?

With a 1-0 lead in the series, it'd be tempting for everyone to write about how Dhoni & co. had such a defensive approach on the third day at Nagpur.

Yet, keep in mind that the 8-1 and 7-2 fields were in place mostly during the first session. Australia, with a batting lineup of Hussey, Katich, Clarke, Watson, Haddin & White, didn't improvise or do anything to counter India's strategy (first choke off the runs, wait for one wicket to fall, and then move in for the 'kill'). They could have come down the track to the quicks, played more reverse sweeps, taken strike outside off to work the ball to leg, etc. But nothing of that sort happened. It wasn't until the last session that there was some urgency around the proceedings.

Sure, India's strategy was defensive, but that was only in the first session. Australia didn't keep their nerve, which is what India relied on.

Australia, in the 2004 series, opted for a similar strategy (ok, 8-1 was a bit of an extreme) and won. That strategy, implemented beautifully by the bowlers with India's batsmen unable to counter it, was hailed by all and sundry, and rightly so. It gave them the best chance of winning the series by capitalizing on the Indian batsmen's reluctance to be innovative or take singles.

Even if you ignore the approach for first couple of sessions, Australia could have actually declared around half an hour before stumps and had a go at India's batsmen with the hope of taking a couple of wickets, if not more. As it turned out, they got one over!

Today, Australia's best hope is to rely on India muffing up the lines, and ideally getting bowled out for 220-odd. I guess they'll settle for around 7-8 wickets today without conceding more than 200 runs, considering that India are nearly 90 ahead.

India will aim to score at least 300 today, not losing more than 5 wickets and then try to bat around half an hour tomorrow morning (to make first use of the roller, the heavy one!) setting a 450 run target. Ideally though, Rahul Dravid will make some runs. But given the way he's batted in the recent past and the dropped catch yesterday, a retirement announcement maybe around the corner.

It could yet be a fascinating test match. I am not going to rule out an Australian comeback, for the simple reason that the 'Great B@st@rds' manage to fight back and win so bloody often.

In an unrelated development, Malcolm Conn finally wrote an article which doesn't contain the words "India have been the worst behaved team in the last decade".

Labels: aus v ind 2008, australia, boring, india

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:46 am | Sledge/Read 7 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Bridgetown set for battle of the bounce

Without doubt, the two least interesting teams at the World Cup are England and South Africa. England lurch from one tragi-comic performance to another. As in Australia, they have opted for a flat-cap, belt-and-braces strategy: hope Saj can keep it to less than six an over and pick up a twofer with his slower balls, let Monty wheel away innocuously, completely ignore Bopara, and refuse to change the batting order despite painfully slow scoring.

Lawrence Booth, writing in The Times, says that England don't innovate with their shot-making, and Richard Boock thinks that Graeme Smith's captaincy isn't up to scratch. These are teams struggling for confidence and form, and one of them will probably be thrown to the lions in a semi-final against Australia.

Between them, England and South Africa have two full-time spinners, both left-armers. These are also the only two left-arm bowlers in either side. South Africa have two left-handed batsmen, England have three. Ally this to the fast and bouncy Bridgetown pitch, and this match will see large periods of play in which a right-arm fast-medium bowler bangs it in on (or just short of) a length on (or just outside of) the off-stump of a right-handed batsman.

And yet the nature of the game makes it exciting. Both sides need a win, both sides are haunted by their own inadequacies. The familiar nature of the bowling might not be such a bad thing either: if there's one type of bowler and pitch that both sides should be used to, it's the type they'll encounter here. Fielding could be the key. South Africa, as I said two months ago, drop too many catches. This was highlighted again in their loss to New Zealand. England aren't a good fielding side, but a side with some good fielders. Bell's fielding has improved, and Bopara, Collingwood, and Pietersen eat up the ground in the outfield. But Vaughan, Panesar, and, to a lesser extent, Strauss must be hidden, and Flintoff has dropped from his standards of a couple of years ago.

I'm with Athers: I expect England to lose. In a way, I want England to lose. They have learned nothing, they have been at once rigid and poorly prepared, and they haven't even had the decency to play with any kind of flair. South Africa might be a bunch of robotic, unimaginative chokers, but at least they have batsmen who can hit the ball hard and bowlers who can slice through a side and keep their head at the death. I don't want South Africa to win, but I won't complain too much if they do.

Also: I really haven't been keeping up with who other counties have signed. But it seems that Warwickshire have signed Kumar Sangakkara! And RP Singh (what happened to him?) has cunningly stationed himself in Leicestershire should India suffer any injuries on their tour of England.

Labels: 2007 world cup, boring, england, rp singh, sangakkara, south africa, world cup

Thus spake Geoff @ 3:04 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]