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 ]

Ruthless Aussies through to Semis




Glen McGrath courtesy of 50ISO100

In the remodeled Kensington Oval in Barbados, the Aussie machine became the first to seal a semi final place with a ruthless demolition of the Irish team. Australian captain Ricky Ponting won the toss, but instead of opting for batting practice for his team, he sent Ireland in, and it was all over before lunch.

The Irish had no answer for the pace and bounce of Shaun Tait nor for the accuracy and skill of Glenn McGrath. Both finished with 3 wickets a piece as Ireland were reduced to 2 for 3 and then 12 for 4. The wily veteran McGrath proved that he still has some fire in his bowling when he fell Andrew White with a rising delivery that hit the batsman in the helmet. McGrath now leads the World Cup with 18 wickets. Ireland were eventually dismissed for 91 in 30 overs, with some late order batting by John Mooney (23) making the score half decent.

It was then a race to finish off the match before lunch as Mike Hussey, in need of time in the middle, and Adam Gilchrist opened the batting and took the fight to the Irish bowlers. Hussey was more subdued, while Gilchrist (34 off 25) demolished the bowling. When Aussie born Trent Johnston had Gilchrist bowled, he gave a celebratory jig that was the highlight for the Irish bowlers. Andrew Symonds then entered and picked up where Gilchrist left off. A massive six pulled into the new Greenidge and Haynes stand by Hussey finished off the match. The entire match lasted just 42.2 overs.

Australia's final position will be determined by their final two matches: the biggies against Sri Lanka on Monday and New Zealand on Friday. Today South Africa plays New Zealand, another game with semi final implications. A win by New Zealand would seal their place, while a South African victory would go a long way to confirming South Africa's semi final place, and it would also officially eliminate the West Indies.

(Cross posted from Rain, No Play)

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, ireland, ruthlessness, world cup

Thus spake Sean @ 7:44 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 ]