Where's the ruthlessness?

It is now a week since India won the test series against New Zealand 1-0. Yet, as has already been commented in a lot of places, the scoreline should really have been 2-0.

In just 7 tests as India's captain (won 5, drawn 2), MS Dhoni has already twice exhibited a strangely defensive mindset. First, at Mohali against England where the batting was needlessly defensive in the 1st innings and and an unnecessary and unhealthy focus on seeing if Gambhir and Yuvraj could get their centuries in the 2nd innings.

At Wellington, I don't think the declaration was significantly delayed. I know setting a target of 600+ in the last innings is a bit outlandish, but at least the positive intent was there while batting. The main problem is that the field setting during New Zealand's "chase" was ridiculously defensive a lot of the time, particularly after McCullum was wrongly given out.

For some strange reason, Daniel Vettori was allowed to pick up singles. Now, he's not a bad batsman and but for the need to preserve the image of New Zealand's "batsmen" he'd have consistently gone in at #5 or #6. Yet, given the state of the game and the immense pressure he'd have been under, there was a real shortage of close-in fielders. This tendency to "allow" the "better" lower order batsman to get off strike with the intention of focussing on the bunny at the other end is something I've seen several Indian teams employ. I dare say, it has failed every single time, for a variety of reasons (poor field placement, dropped catches, bad fielding, plain luck, etc.)

The ruthlessness that you expect from a side which targets a #1 position in ODIs by 2009 and in tests by 2010 (incidentally the very first time that a short-term vision is being outlined by someone representing the BCCI) has been absent for a while.

One could point out that South Africa lost the Sydney test while Australia lost at Cape Town. After all, if the other top two sides also seem to take it easy in "dead rubbers", why blame India?

Yet, why should the Indian team use the current Australian team as benchmark? Why not set new standards?

In the 18 series that Dhoni has captained, India have lost the final match after sealing the series on 4 occasions (v Pakistan in India, v Sri Lanka away twice and the recent ODI series v New Zealand). Add in the diffidence at Mohali and Wellington and you have to question if the team management is satisfied being a #3 side or if it really wants to be #1 soon.

There is absolutely no doubt that the side has the ability to do even better. What it does need though is someone other than Yuvraj at #6. Yuvraj is 27 while the others vying for the slot (Suresh Raina, Subramaniam Badrinath & Rohit Sharma) are 22, 28 and 25. In fact, if Irfan Pathan sorts out his bowling soon enough, I'd add him to the mix as well. After Sourav Ganguly's retirement, none of the top 6 bowl anything other than spin (excluding Tendulkar's all-sorts). So Irfan would provide a wonderful option. He can't bat worse than Yuvraj, so all he has to do is to get the bowling together and contribute something like 15-5-35-1 (with the occasional 2-3 wicket "haul") every innings as a 3rd seamer. That would be invaluable.

So really there's nothing to be lost in giving these chaps a few chances. I wouldn't associate any stigma with Yuvraj Singh not being able to make it in test cricket. He is one of the best batsmen in limited overs cricket. He has had enough opportunities, and I'll stick to my stand. He is an excellent replacement batsman, but he should never be a first choice pick despite him playing the odd sensational innings.

For all the talk of Michael Bevan not succeeding in test cricket, I think it suffices to point out his ODI record and the number of times he's won a game for Australia. There're several other players who come to mind - notably Symonds and Rhodes (batting & fielding) & Harris and Saqlain (bowling). Does that diminish their achievements? I don't think so. I'm not devaluing test cricket. But assuming that achievements in test cricket count significantly more than those in the other formats of the game is unfair.

A statistic to end this - Before this series win, the last time India won the test and ODI series of a tour (excluding those involving Bangladesh & Zimbabwe) was in Pakistan in 2004. If you exclude the sub-continent, the last occasion was in England in 1986.

Labels: dhoni, india, new zealand, positive intent, ruthlessness, statistic, yuvraj

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:12 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Woeful defensive England

West Indies have won their first series against half-decent opposition since beating India in 2002. They came pretty close to losing the final test, and were 8 down when the game ended. It'd have been very interesting if there was a situation where having exhausted the 2 reviews available to them, they couldn't appeal for (say) a plumb lbw that wasn't given in their favour. This was a situation I outlined in a post after the ICC announced that teams would now only get 2 reviews rather than the previous 3.

Imagine if the test match or series was up for grabs, with the last pair at the crease and an appeal for lbw was made, but the umpire ruled not out even though it was quite plumb. The bowling team finds to its agony that it has exhausted all its reviews. The batsmen go on to save/win the test. I'm guessing that it isn't an altogether unlikely scenario. So why should a team be penalized for using up its reviews even as an umpire getting it wrong totally costs them a test/series?

There's a lot of talk around West Indies being defensive by filling the side with batsmen & picking only 3 bowlers for the last test and preparing dead pitches. There's no doubt that the ICC needs to do something about the pitches. But if anything, England were defensive yesterday and showed no positive intent.

I actually expected England to declare before lunch, immediately after Pietersen had got his century. But bizarrely, they kept batting for around 10 more balls. Could those extra balls have made a difference? Entirely likely!

In fact, when Prior got out, Pietersen was on 80-odd and apparently had issues with the instructions that were relayed to him. Maybe the lure of a personal landmark clouded his judgement. I'm surprised he didn't rewind to just 3 months ago when he was England's skipper enjoying India bizarrely & defensively focussing on Gambhir and Yuvraj getting centuries at the cost of winning the Mohali test.

England made 3 scores of 500 or more in the series against West Indies. It's quite possible this is the first time this has resulted in a series loss.

Labels: england, positive intent, statistic, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:58 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Bizarre decision-making from India at Mohali

At lunch on the second day at Mohali, India had England by the proverbials (normally used only in an Aussie context). India were 302/1, having added 123 runs in 33 overs (run rate of 3.7). Even if they didn't bother accelerating over the next session and a half, they could have got to 460, and with some acceleration, to 500 leaving England's tired openers & other batsmen an hour before stumps to survive the new ball and a few overs of spin.

After lunch, the intent was there - to speed it up. But the wrong batsman was entrusted with the job. Gambhir can easily, almost at will, speed up his scoring rate. Dravid is, in current form, incapable of doing so. The instructions should have been for Dravid to try and get the quick runs while Gambhir's aim should have been to bat through the innings. But it all went haywire. First, Gambhir got out slogging, then Dravid. If India were really serious about trying to win, they should have sent out Yuvraj, if not after Gambhir's dismissal then at least after Dravid was out. But we saw Laxman come in and he pottered around for nearly 30 balls without scoring. In the meantime, Tendulkar had got out.

Then, Yuvraj and Dhoni put on 40 runs in 19 overs. Yes, you read it right. With India on 339/5, Yuvraj Singh and MS Dhoni, those mighty hitters, scored at just 2 an over when the situation demanded something like 4 an over to totally demoralize England. India scored 54 runs in 28 overs in the 2nd session, something similar to England's crawl in the 2nd session on day four at Chepauk last Sunday. England's batting that evening cost them the test. Could India suffer this time around? I certainly believe so - perhaps not to the extent of losing the test but ending up with a draw rather than a win.

Harbhajan's arrival at the crease sparked some urgency, and then there was a brief flurry during the partnership between Zaheer and Mishra. At that stage, there were around 15 overs left to be bowled and if India had declared then, England would have had to face something like 12-13 overs ideally, and light permitting, at least 5 overs. If India had managed to get a wicket or two (since a nightwatchman, Ian Bell?, may have been sent), then that'd have put so much pressure on England's batsmen on day 3.

But no, a pointless 10th wicket partnership followed where Amit Mishra and Ishant Sharma put on 7 runs in 4 overs, with Ishant exhibiting his defensive skills (1 off 16). I had to get my wife to pick up my jaw from the floor when that partnership was going on, because it was jaw-droppingly insanely defensive stuff.

What was the point of that partnership? Were the instructions to bat out until end of day's play so that the next day India could opt for the heavy roller in the morning before start of play? Given that only 80 overs are going to be bowled each day during the game, time to bowl England out twice should have been the main consideration. India should have declared as soon as Zaheer was out. What's the big difference between 446 and 453, or even 460 for the matter? How likely is it that the margin in the test would be less than 20 runs?

As it turned out, England had to face something like 9 overs, but the umpires ruled that the light had deteriorated and that was exactly what England wanted. In fact, if England's bowlers had bowled a little sensibly (way outside off stump for example), they could have dragged on the charade for a few overs more to totally remove all possibility of their openers having to come out to bat today.

The play in the last 2 sessions today was totally unexpected and inexplicable. It isn't something you expect from a team that is 1-0 up, and basically has done everything right in the test. It's certainly not what you expect from a team that's led by MS Dhoni or one that aims to be a #1 side in the near future.

Down under at the WACA, South Africa are chasing 414, and India could be demoted to #5 on the list of top 4th innings chases. They need 186 more with 7 wickets in hand. It works out to just 2 an over, but we're talking of South Africa and the great b@st#rds. I think the key wicket will be Mark Boucher. But first, Kallis & de Villiers need to put on at least 100 more. That'll give Boucher some space to bat with an inexperienced lower order. But I'm still predicting that South Africa will fall around 100 short.

Labels: eng v ind 2008, india, mohali, positive intent

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:28 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Greatness is often just 5% further away

At Cape Town, India made 24 runs in a period of 15.1 overs (90 in 31.4 to 114 in 46.5) between Ganguly's and Dravid's dismissals.

At Adelaide, England made 24 runs in 16.4 overs (70 in 32 overs to 94 in 48.4 overs) between Bell's and Jones' dismissals.

On the basis of this evidence, and the eventual results, it does seem very possible that the pathetic rate of run-scoring was the primary reason for the results. This isn't to say that England would have come back to win the series, but it wouldn't have been 5-0. On the other hand, some more positive batting could have resulted in a series win for India.

If England and India had scored at a normal rate (3 an over, which is about what you'd expect in a test match), Australia's target would have been 216 in 36 overs (6 an over, certainly tougher than 4.7 an over) while South Africa's target would have been 240-odd, possibly just enough to make them wobble at 132/4 when Smith and Pollock got out in quick succession.

Positive intent is always a useful thing to have. Case in point - Australia. Last year, at The Oval, Australia bowled out England for 373. Hayden and Langer had a century partnership and Australia were sitting pretty at 112/0 at tea on the second day. After tea, it became overcast and the light was offered to the batsmen, who accepted it, despite the onus being on Australia to do all the running, given England was 2-1 up and only needed a draw to win the series while Australia needed to win to retain the urn. The result is well-documented now, as indeed is the current status.

I'm fairly sure that England's and India's cricketers, especially the ones who get really hurt by losing, would have woken up the next day morning thinking that the day would have been significantly better if each of them had score even 1 more run an over!

THAT is what great teams do. The difference between victory and defeat, in international cricket, is that thin. Great teams do the small things better. The extra one run an over, the four overthrows saved, the cut-shot heading to the boundary which was ruthlessly intercepted by the point fielder ... those're the things that great teams do well.

That extra 5% improvement which Rohit Brijnath wrote about last April now seems so bloody relevant!

Labels: ashes, attitude, australia, england, india, positive intent, ruthlessness, scoring, south africa

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:54 pm | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The value of positive intent

We started off fairly early with posts on the Ashes. Some of our earliest couple of posts were about the series (the gamut).

We're obviously too *(@#ing frustrated at the way it has turned out, especially since Lord's. While Ganesh felt that the turning point of the series was McGrath trodding on the ball, I felt that Ponting's decision to bowl at Edgbaston was the key moment in the series. It was either a cocky one, or a decision taken in total haste.

In any case, with a lead of 264 and 38 overs to be bowled today, this Oval test is all set to be a dull draw. As predicted last month, rain had a huge say in the matter. But you can't just blame rain! Australia had England on the ropes on quite a few occasions during the game. England were 300/7 on the first day and got to 373. If that wasn't so smart, Australia's batsmen outdid their bowlers on the third day by progressing, if that is the right word, from 250/1 looking at a total of 500, to conceding a lead of six runs!

They even decided to go off when the umpires offered them the light, with the score at 112/0. This was a must-win test for Australia. Yet, they preferred the safety first approach. India faced a similar situation three years ago at Headingley. They had been thrashed at Lord's and outplayed for the most part at Trent Bridge. They had to win to stay in the series. This is what happened, from the Cricinfo commentary. The score was 495/3 in the 166th over with Tendulkar and Ganguly at the crease.

165.4 Caddick to Ganguly, no run, quick one on the off, seaming away a
bit, the ball slides past the edge to the keeper
Light being offered to the batsmen. Sourav Ganguly tells the
umpires "We'll play" and the game goes on
Hussain immediately adjusts the field, sending two men to the fence
on the on side. Get ready for some short stuff an angry Hussain
seems to say

The day's play ended at 584/4 with Ganguly's wicket in the 174th over. So in nine overs, they'd put on 90 runs! That is what positive intent can do! India went on to win the game and level the series.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2005, positive intent

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:10 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]