dailycric

Indian team for Sri Lanka Tests

2009-11-09T19:09:00.000-08:00

This will be a relatively brief post, because, in spite of India’s heartbreaking loss to Australia in the ODIs, and the question marks over a number of players in the shorter format of the game, I think our Test side is looking relatively stable. And for me, though the series against Australia was thrilling, it’s the Tests that really matter, and the upcoming two series against Sri Lanka and South Africa will be challenging and provide a reality check on how good a team we are at the moment.

In the playing 11, really only a couple of spots are up for grabs. There is no question about Gambhir, Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman forming the top 5, or about Dhoni’s spot as keeper. Zaheer’s return won’t come a moment too soon, and he and Harbhajan are certainties. So, too, in my mind, should Ishant Sharma be a certainty. There are still question marks over his form, but he seemed to be regaining his rhythm against the Aussies, and I think that dropping him after one bad performance in that series was a huge mistake. Munaf Patel, who came in his place as the “form” bowler, was whipped for 9 an over in Hyderabad, and the series effectively was turned at that point. That’s the difference between Ishant and Munaf. Ishant might struggle with form, which is partly a struggle with confidence, and confidence won’t be helped by dropping him. (And Ishant has always been a better Test bowler than a shorter-format bowler in any case). With Munaf, on the other hand, you just don’t know whether Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde will turn up on any given day. He has stepped admirably into Ajit Agarkar’s shoes.

This means that the only real questions concern our 6th batsman and 4th bowler.

With the 6th batsman, I would persist with Yuvraj Singh. I’m not entirely convinced of this selection, because Yuvraj still doesn’t entirely convince as a Test batsman. Because of his natural talent, he is very good when he is good. But there are all manner of technical vulnerabilities, against both the moving ball and against quality spin. His major strength is his self-confidence, so when he is in form and in the zone he is able to overcome those limitations, often brilliantly.

One of the reasons I would persist with Yuvraj is because I think he deserves a good run at the no. 6 spot after Ganguly’s retirement. He has had 7 matches so far, with mixed results – very impressive against England, ordinary against New Zealand. A second reason is the TINA factor – it’s not clear that there is an obvious alternative to him, though there are certainly players who are potentially good enough to replace him, and who are technically better than he is. Certainly, none of the youngsters we have seen so much of in one-day and T20 cricket – Raina, Rohit or Kohli – looks ready or good enough to take his place. (Rohit I think has the technique for Tests – but if he doesn’t have the temperament to build an innings over 50 overs, I don’t see how we can rely on him as a Test batsman. The effects of IPL and the corrosive effect it has had on the domestic game are already evident).

So, the realistic competition to Yuvraj really is, once again, Subramaniam Badrinath. I know I keep falling back on him, but I do think he is that good. He is one of the soundest batsmen technically in the country; he has been performing consistently for over three years now, the sort of domestic consistency that only Gautam Gambhir has matched in recent times; and he has started this season off, yet again, with a 100. With someone like Dravid likely to retire in the next year or two, we desperately need someone who can at least make a fist of filling those shoes, and Badri seems the best suited to do so by far. We have to give him a fair chance, before he gives up hope and loses the drive that has made him such a successful player so far.

Indeed, Badri should be giving Yuvi a serious run for that spot in the playing 11. I would persist with Yuvraj because he is the man in possession of the spot, and at the start of a new season, the man in possession does deserve a chance first. And because his bowling adds value to a side that only plays four frontline bowlers. Since neither Sehwag nor Tendulkar has been bowling much of late, having someone who can reliably chip in with a few extra overs is important. Badri also does have that ability, but given how well Yuvraj has bowled over the last year, I would stick with him for a while longer. It’s a close affair though, and I think he definitely needs to be on trial. The one good thing about Yuvraj though is that when his form is bad, he looks woeful and completely out of his depth, so he’s not one of those people (like Rohit) who will keep making promising 30s and keep you wondering whether he’s on the edge of a big innings or not. So I’d give Yuvi another chance, but make it clear to him that he can’t take his place in the 11 for granted. One slip-up, and Badri should finally get his due.

For the fourth bowler, even though we are playing in India, I would go with a third seamer because Sri Lanka is so good against spin (and anyway, Yuvi is good for 10-12 overs as a second spinner). And this is where I would make my controversial decision. In popular wisdom, the spot seems to be contested between Munaf Patel (as the form player), Ashish Nehra (as the comeback kid) and Sudeep Tyagi (as the new kid on the block), with the likes of R.P. Singh and Sreesanth waiting in the wings for their one big spell in domestic cricket to come knocking again. I however, would go with someone I have admired for a long time, and pick Praveen Kumar.

It frankly amazes me that PK has not been seriously considered for Test cricket, but that just shows how perceptions die hard. He bowls around 130 kph, and he is accurate, and so it seems to have decided that he is a “one-day bowler” – even though he made it into India reckoning on the strength of some remarkable, and remarkably consistent, 4- and 5-day performances for UP in the Ranji Trophy. (Who can forget his magical 8-wicket haul in a losing cause in the 1st innings of the 2007-08 Ranji final against Delhi, one of the best bowling performances in domestic cricket in recent times? Obviously, the selectors).

There are two things I admire about PK. The first is skill, and the second is heart. In terms of skill, he is one of the few bowlers in the world who can swing the ball both ways, and that is not a trivial talent. And he swings it on a dime, with relentless accuracy. It would be meaningless to make comparisons with someone as great as Glenn McGrath or Shaun Pollock, though both showed that you didn’t need express pace to be a great bowler in Tests as long as you had relentless accuracy and the ability to move the ball. But it is certainly relevant to make comparisons with the likes of Dominic Cork or Manoj Prabhakar or Venkatesh Prasad, all of whom could be devastating bowlers in even slightly helpful conditions, and all of whom have won Test matches for their national sides.

Of course, it is true that in unhelpful conditions PK can be easy pickings. But which one of our seam bowlers, bar Zaheer Khan, is capable of holding his own un unhelpful conditions? It’s not like Munaf Patel is suddenly going to be a demon in unhelpful conditions. Indeed, it’s not even like Munaf is particularly faster than PK, since he hardly bowls above 135 kph these days. Yet, again, early perceptions die hard, so somehow Munaf is considered a Test bowler and PK considered “too slow” for Tests, in spite of all empirical evidence to the contrary.

Along with this skill, PK brings enormous heart to his bowling – and there alone, he scores heavily over Munaf. PK is relentlessly at the batsman, always trying, always wearing his heart on his sleeve, and that kind of commitment is infectious for a team. He now seems to have discovered his batting abilities at the highest level as well, which means that having Bhajji, PK and Zak at 8, 9 and 10 lends serious lower order gumption to the batting line-up.

The reserve seamer’s spot, for me, is a toss-up between Munaf and Ashish Nehra. Munaf is the man in possession, and have a pretty decent account of himself in Tests in New Zealand (though he was horrible in the one-dayers). But Nehra, since his recall to the side in T20 and ODIs, has been bowling with beautiful rhythm. The worry with Nehra has always been whether his body would last the grind of a Test match, so it’s always a bit of a gamble to pick him – and indeed, his recall was on the back of IPL performances, rather than anything he has done in domestic cricket of late. Still, I will stick with him on two grounds. The first is experience – Nehra seems to have come back a tougher, more mature cricketer. And the second is skill. Munaf can be a pretty accurate customer (Sunil Gavaskar rather grandiosely compared him to Glenn McGrath, but really the more accurate comparison is to Angus Fraser). But Nehra is a genuinely skillful swing bowler, and when in rhythm, just gets lovely shape on the ball. And, if pace is such a big consideration, he is still a good yard quicker than Munaf, so swings it at reasonable pace. Had I been more sure of his fitness, I would have put him in the 11 ahead of PK. As it is, I think he is worthy of a spot in the 14. Munaf will just have to go back to domestic cricket and prove that his occasional flashes of brilliance can be backed up with some consistency.

The reserve spinner’s spot unquestionably goes to Amit Mishra (though Pragyan Ojha might have a question or two about that), so that pretty much takes care of the side:

Playing XI against Sri Lanka:

1. Gautam Gambhir (V)
2. Virendra Sehwag
3. Rahul Dravid
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. V.V.S. Laxman
6. Yuvraj Singh
7. Mahendra Dhoni © (W)
8. Harbhajan Singh
9. Praveen Kumar
10. Zaheer Khan
11. Ishant Sharma

Reserves:

12. Subramaniam Badrinath
13. Ashish Nehra
14. Amit Mishra

Thoughts on the axing of Dravid, Prasad and Robin

2009-10-20T05:30:00.000-07:00

Having recently moved back to India, I went to open a bank account. As I was waiting for the woman behind the desk to do my paperwork, a young lad showed up wanting to open an account. He was not much older than 20, and clearly did not come from a particularly affluent background. He also did not know much about bank accounts. He told the woman that he wanted to open one. The woman did not even look up at him, and, with undisguised scorn, said “kaunsa account kholna hai”? [What account do you want to open?]. The young man had no idea what she was talking about, so he just stuttered and stammered for a bit. The woman rolled her eyes at him, then kept doing her own thing, and periodically asked, with increasing irritation “kaunsa account kholna hai?”. The fellow didn’t know what accounts existed, so she reeled off some names at him, without stopping at any point to explain what any of these accounts were or what they meant. She then looked around at all the others sitting in the bank, mostly more affluent and more knowledgeable than he, and everyone collectively laughed at his ignorance, as he grew more and more nervous and awkward.

Don’t get me wrong – I love being back in India. But one thing that hasn’t changed over the years, in spite of all the pretenses of “new economies” and “India Shining”, is the deeply ingrained cultural attitude of those with petty authority, who relish humiliating those without that authority. Invariably this petty authority is not earned; and invariably it comes with little accountability. But it is in these everyday exercises of little autocratic power, the ability to prick another person’s pride, to prevent another person from doing what they want or need to get done, that so many of us find and exercise power.

This is relevant for understanding what has just happened in Indian cricket. Osman Samiuddin, in an angry and articulate piece in cricinfo about the Younis Khan debacle, pointed to a feature of Pakistani society – that in the midst of much mediocrity, those who succeed become easy targets for any number of others who try and pull them down. I think that we in India have to some extent outgrown that bad trait – there are enough successful people in the country now that we have started celebrating and reveling in others’ success rather than simply trying to pull them down. But that other, inverse and closely related, sub-continental characteristic has still not changed – if we are in a position to kick someone who is slightly below us, even (or especially) if that someone is more meritorious, hardworking or dedicated than we are, then we do so with gusto. The latest to experience this kick in the face in Indian cricket are three of the most earnest servants of Indian cricket of the past decade, Rahul Dravid, Venkatesh Prasad and Robin Singh.

There are some differences between the axing of Dravid and the axing of Prasad and Robin, so let me explore those first before returning to what is common. The major difference is that Dravid’s was a selectorial decision, and those are decisions that can be debated, where one can legitimately arrive at different conclusions. I myself felt that Dravid’s reinclusion for the Champion’s Trophy did not make sense, given that for the previous two years we had made the claim that we were building a young one-day outfit with the 2011 World Cup in mind. (I had also made the case that Dravid’s axing two years ago was unwarranted, and that purely on cricketing grounds he remained one of India’s best one-day batsmen. I think that two years later, in spite of giving long ropes to the likes of Robin Uthappa, Rohit Sharma and Suresh Raina, that remains the case even today). But the fact is, Dravid did what he was supposed to do. He wasn’t a spectacular success, but he provided the backbone that the line-up so sorely lacked in the T20 World Cup. And then, without rhyme or reason, he has been dropped again.

I can understand accommodating Sehwag and Yuvraj Singh now that both are fit. But effectively, Dravid has now been deemed less worthy than Suresh Raina and Virat Kohli. The former is ironic, since it was precisely Raina’s weakness against the short ball that led to the clamor for Dravid’s recall in the first place. It is hardly the case that Raina has become an expert against the short ball in the last two months. Indeed, over the last two months, Raina has done remarkably little with the bat, and purely on form, can surely not be certain of his place in the playing 11. He was one of the more spectacular failures of the Challenger Trophy as well. There is no doubt that he is an immensely talented batsman, and no doubt also that since his recall in 2008 he has had a generally quite successful year in the shorter version of the game. But he is not going to do the job that Dravid does – provide stability and backbone to the batting line-up – and that would not have been his job even if he was in the peak of form.

Meanwhile, what claim does Virat Kohli have to replace Dravid? Again, sure he is a talented batsman, and, unlike Raina, he has been in good form over the summer, having made runs in the Emerging Players tournament in Australia. But does a summer’s worth of run-making stand up against someone who has nearly 11,000 runs in this form of the game alone?

One series ago, Kohli was lower down the pecking order than Raina. Two series ago – after his heroics in Australia – Kohli was lower down the pecking order than Raina, Rohit Sharma and Dinesh Karthik. Now, suddenly, he’s better than Dravid? What has he done to warrant that? In substantial terms, all that he has managed in this time for India is one innings of 74 against a second-string West Indian attack in a dead game with nothing at stake. But does one innings in a dead game stack up against 11,000 runs?

There are two problems with the line of thinking that leads to selections such as Kohli’s over Dravid’s. The first is that it privileges short-term memory – whoever does well in the last game stays. This is not the way to build world-beating sides, because even great players go through bad patches, and ultimately the adage of form being temporary, and class permanent, is one of the truest in cricket. And the second – which is what is so ironic – is that this short-term memory combines with the trumpeting of a so-called “long-term” mentality. In other words, the likes of Kohli, Rohit and Raina always come into the side ahead of more established, indeed better, batsmen, because we are “building for tomorrow”. The problem is, ever since I can recall following our team, we have been “building for tomorrow”. We were “building for tomorrow” during that ill-fated 1990 tour of New Zealand, which included such “long-term prospects” as V.B. Chandrasekhar and Gursharan Singh, who never played for India again. We were “building for tomorrow” at the turn of the millennium, with our “21st century” team that had the likes of Yuvraj, Mohammad Kaif, Hemang Badani and Reetinder Sodhi. Of those players, only Badani is on the wrong side of 30, and only Yuvraj survives – and even he, a decade later, is yet to mature into a reliable Test match player. In other words, we keep “building for tomorrow” – but tomorrow never comes.

This leads to three problems. The first is that senior players are removed before their time, unless their name is Tendulkar. Dravid, Ganguly, Kumble and Laxman were all axed from the one-day squad when they were playing well and still had a lot to offer. Gambhir stepped into Ganguly’s shoes and performed admirably (but he was already in his mid-20s and matured by then); but for all their hyperactive running around and sledging and occasional T20 heroics, none of the replacements for the other three have matched what these greats had to offer. The sad thing is that we would have prematurely done away with them in the Test team as well, except that it is clear that there is nobody good enough to replace them (except possibly Harbhajan for Kumble, though in my mind the jury is still out on that). And of course, it is these seniors (along with Sehwag, Gambhir and Zaheer), not some upstart youngster, that have made India one of the very best Test teams in the world.

The second problem is that the ones in the middle tend to get neglected – if one is in one’s late 20s, and not yet picked / dropped from the side, one can more or less forget a future with the Indian team. The late 20s / early 30s are often when people play their best cricket; it is the most common time when Australians become fixtures in the national side. But an Indian in his late 20s / early 30s is always less exciting than the latest 19-year old sensation who has made 40 in a high-profile IPL game, and since we have to keep “building for tomorrow”, it is the youngster who inevitably gets picked.

And so, look at the reality of the situation facing us today – we claim to have a dearth of quality middle-order batsmen in the one-day side, especially those who can play short-pitched bowling away from home. Yet Subramaniam Badrinath, who is technically one of the soundest batsmen in Indian cricket, remains perpetually just outside the selectors’ vision. Mohammad Kaif, groomed for years not just as a one-day batsman, but as a Test batsman and future India captain, does not even make it to the Challengers’ Trophy, in spite of performing consistently for UP year in and year out. And Hemang Badani, who could have developed into India’s Michael Bevan with the right encouragement, was destroyed completely. The constant argument trotted out against seniors – that they are not good enough fielders – wouldn’t apply here, as Badri, Kaif and Badani are three of the best fielders in Indian cricket. With proper planning, and genuine long-term vision, how well these three could have supported the core batting line-up of Sehwag, Tendulkar, Gambhir, Yuvraj and Dhoni. Then the exclusion of Dravid would have made sense.

The third problem is that the youngsters are themselves not properly groomed. We spend an enormous amount of effort and energy on them for a year or two, and give them undeserved and excessive adulation – and then at the first sign of failure, drop them like hot potatoes. So – enormous effort was expended on Sreesanth and Robin Uthappa between 2006 and 2008, but now they have been dropped, with no clear path back, and no clear idea of what is happening when they are out of the side. The same story has repeated itself with Rohit Sharma between 2007 and 2009, now nowhere; and it is in the process of happening to Ishant Sharma. Most spectacularly, of course, this has happened repeatedly with Irfan Pathan, meaning that the one genuine all-rounder in Indian cricket has at no point been properly nurtured; and others like R.P. Singh and Dinesh Karthik, who have proven that they have the games to succeed at the highest level, are people who have not developed the maturity to perform consistently. So my problem is not simply with the selection of Kohli – under certain parameters, that selection makes sense. It is that the system within which that selection operates makes it almost certain that Kohli will go the way of these others. For a couple of series, if he succeeds, he will be compared with Viv Richards. Then at the first sign of failure, he too will join the pile on the thrash-heap, and once he touches 25, even years of sensational performances in domestic cricket won’t bring him back.

Meanwhile, those who have the maturity and experience needed to succeed at the highest level – the Badris, the Kaifs, the Wasim Jaffers – keep getting ignored. The only exception was Gautam Gambhir, who forced his way into the side through sheer dint of performance that even selectors couldn’t ignore – and what an unqualified success he has been!

So for me, the problem with Dravid’s exclusion is not so much about the selection itself – one could look at a particular series and make a legitimate claim that Kohli is a form player; that R.P. Singh and Karthik have failed; that Raina deserves another chance; that Rohit has received too many chances; that Dravid doesn’t fit into the 2011 scheme of things; and one could end up making a case for pretty much everyone who has been selected.

But when one takes a longer-term view, and considers the following facts:

• That India’s second-most accomplished one-day batsman, with 11,000 Test runs to his name, who is in good form, and who performs a role in the side that no one else has shown the ability or mental strength to perform (Rahul Dravid) has just been dropped;
• That the most prolific batsman in Indian domestic cricket last year, who had a record-breaking season in Ranji Trophy, and who holds three of the highest individual scores in one-day domestic competitions, who is only 32 and who could conceivably step into Dravid’s shoes in the one-day side and into Ganguly’s place in the Test side (Wasim Jaffer), is not in the reckoning for either side;
• That the most prolific batsman in Indian domestic cricket over the last two years, who is still only 22 and who is probably, simply on technique, the batsman most likely to successfully replace Dravid in the Test line-up (Cheteshwar Pujara), has not been given a chance, probably because he doesn’t have the game yet to play that dazzling little cameo in a high-profile IPL game;
• That the most prolific batsman in Indian domestic cricket over the past three years, who has been knocking at Indian doors more persistently than most, and who has the game that is most likely to replicate Dravid’s in a one-day context (Subramaniam Badrinath) is somehow constantly superseded by the latest 19-year old;
• That the most naturally gifted young Indian batsman (Rohit Sharma), has after two years on the international stage still not managed to convert that talent into consistent performance;
• That the best all-rounder in Indian cricket, who was man-of-the-match in the historic Test win at Perth less than two years ago (Irfan Pathan) doesn’t even find himself in the list of 30 probables for the Champions Trophy; and
• That the highest run-getter (Dinesh Karthik) and highest wicket-taker (R.P. Singh) in our historic Test series win in England in 2007 are unable to hold their place in the side for longer than 2 or 3 games at a stretch;

Then surely there is something wrong with the larger picture.

What is really wrong with the larger picture, however, is how Dravid was treated. When Dravid was recalled for the Champions Trophy, there was an excellent commentary on cricinfo, which said that while the merits of the selection could be debated, what was important was that Dravid needed to be told what was expected of him, whether he was in the frame now for the 2011 World Cup, whether this was a stopgap arrangement, or what. Someone of his seniority, stature and commitment surely deserves at least that. Instead, he has been treated in perfunctory fashion – called in to perform a role, and then jettisoned without explanation once that roll was performed. When Srikkanth took over as Chairman of the selection panel, one of his first acts was to drop Rohit Sharma from the side. At which point, he personally went to Rohit’s hotel room and explained the decision to him. This was something new and refreshing, and I thought that we had turned a corner with this new selection committee. But now it is back to business as usual, as one of the greatest batsmen India has produced has not been treated with the courtesy that a 20-year old yet to establish himself had received.

And this is where one sees the parallels with the sacking of Prasad and Robin. Again, purely in terms of performance, one could make a case that Robin hadn’t managed to bring about much of an improvement in fielding standards. But Prasad certainly had managed to effect an improvement in bowling standards – indeed, just a year ago we were marveling at the reverse-swing skills exhibited by the likes of Zaheer, Ishant and R.P., skills that the Aussies or the English for instance were completely unable to replicate. And someone like Praveen Kumar has talked about what a difference Prasad has made to his bowling.

Sure, there are problems with the bowlers – there are injuries, there is lack of consistency, there is Ishant’s second-season blues. But how much of that is either unique to India, or Prasad’s fault? England’s entire first-line seam attack in 2005 was either injured or out of favor by 2009; there isn’t a fast bowler in New Zealand who lasts 5 games without breaking down; Australia, just over the past year, have seen injuries to Brett Lee, Stuart Clark and Nathan Bracken. Lack of consistency and second-season blues are hardly just India’s problem either. Morne Morkel was hailed, along with Ishant, as the brightest fast bowling sensation in the world at the start of 2008; he has fallen away dramatically, and is no longer in the side. Even Mitchell Johnson, coming into England on the back of sensational bowling against South Africa, had a case of the horrors through much of the Ashes that far exceeds anything Ishant has endured. Injuries and bad form are part of a fast bowler’s growing up – and probably have much more to do with a surfeit of cricket, and the lures and distractions of T20 and IPL (which was in fact when Ishant’s bowling started falling away dramatically) – both of which are the fault of the BCCI, not of any of the coaches.

But someone like Prasad is an easy fall guy, someone who can be axed to “make a statement”, to show accountability – ironically by the very people who have the least accountability of all in Indian cricket. It is the same mentality that was shown by the woman in the bank – saying that you could have worked hard, with sincerity and dedication, and given the job your all; but I, ultimately, have the power to dispose of you whenever I see fit, in the manner I see fit. It is the bane, not just of Indian cricket, but of Indian society – and it is the sort of attitude that will always hold us back.

Regardless of the successes or failures of Prasad, Dravid or Robin, these are people who have served Indian cricket with integrity, dedication and selflessness – three qualities that one would be hard-pressed to find in any of the luminaries of the BCCI. But none of that matters, because if you have the ability to exercise petty power without accountability, without merit, without the need to explain yourself, then that power will trump dedication, sincerity and hard work any day.

Let us remember that Prasad and Robin are not the first such casualties of such an attitude. Even in the recent past, perhaps the person most responsible for ensuring a smooth transition from the disastrous Greg Chappell days to the halcyon Gary Kirsten days, Lalchand Rajput, was similarly done away with in this summary fashion. This is not to dispute Kirsten’s selection as coach – he has done a terrific job with the team. But Rajput has been one of the most loyal servants of Indian cricket – an earnest coach at the under-19 and India A levels who has nurtured and spotted young talent over the past decade; an honest and straightforward coach of the national team who managed to smooth over difficulties and effect a remarkable transformation from World Cup drop-outs to T20 World champions in a matter of months. He at least deserved a pat on the back.

So in the midst of the glitz and the razzmatazz of cheerleaders and meaningless T20 competitions, and of tedious conversations of whether we are really no. 1 or 2 or 3, let us spare a thought for Dravid and Prasad and Robin; and for others, the Rajputs, the Jaffers, the Badris and the Kaifs; the unsung people who have gone a long way towards bringing Indian cricket to the point where it is even possible to aspire to the top.

These are also, alas, the people who have been deemed as dispensable by those who have little caliber, but the power and authority to make decisions about who gets to stay and who gets dumped. As long as such power and authority remains vested in those who abuse it in this way, India will never reach the top, in cricket or in any other arena.

Indian team for Australia ODIs

2009-10-13T10:05:00.000-07:00

Being in India at the moment, I’ve had the opportunity to simultaneously watch the two shorter order tournaments that have been on offer this weekend, the Champions League and the Challenger Trophy. The Champions League is a mixed bag; some of the games with “local” teams have inspired passion and excitement, while I haven’t even bothered to follow the results of the others. For me, the highlight of it is definitely watching the old warhorses, Anil Kumble and Glenn McGrath, back in the limelight, bowling with an aggression and with pinpoint accuracy, as if they’ve never left the game. What true masters and champions they are!

The Challenger Trophy, on the other hand, was a farce. This was a tournament I eagerly looked forward to, because in the past, it has been a good venue to see India aspirants testing themselves against the stars. It has, indeed, proved a launching pad for a number of careers – Hemang Badani, Sarandeep Singh, Sreesanth and Robin Uthappa all got their breaks in the Indian side on the backs of strong Challenger performances.

So, it defeats the purpose really to have this tournament played at a time when many of the major stars are missing in action. Yuvraj and Zaheer injured; any number of key players playing for their franchises in the Champions League; Sachin deciding it’s not worth his while to play this. It made a mockery of the very rationale of the tournament. It is supposed to have the 35 best ODI players in the country playing, which means that really, it serves its purpose if the entire list of probables for the Champions Trophy were in action here. But Ameya Shreekhande? Dhiraj Goswami? Jalaj Saxena? Really? This is the cream of the country? These are people who are not even part of any of the bloated IPL franchises. What a farce.

In the midst of that farce, though, at least three things came shining through:

That Munaf Patel, when he is good, is very good. And we still don’t know which side of the bed he’ll get out of on any given day. The man who made the India Blue batting line-up look like that of a club second XI in the finals was the man who allowed no. 11 and genuine bunny Ashok Dinda smash him to all corners in the first game. Still, Munaf has started the season strongly, with a 5-for in the Irani Trophy as well. Given our current fast bowling problems, he looks like he has bowled himself into contention for a recall.
That Sudeep Tyagi is a genuine prospect. I liked him when I saw him in the IPL, and I liked him even more in this tournament. He is nippy, hits the deck hard, and jags it around sharply either way. He can occasionally bowl too short and be expensive, but with a little maturity he should be able to work on and improve his lengths. At that point, he could be quite a handful. He has come off a strong summer, being the top wicket-taker in the emerging players tournament in Australia as well. If Zaheer Khan is fit, then there may not yet be place for Tyagi in the Indian side, but I think he is knocking at the doors louder than most.
That Wasim Jaffer is still one of the best batsmen in Indian cricket. He has come off a sensational season last year, and has started this season in much the same vein. And what a delight he is to watch when in full flow! I don’t see him breaking into an Indian one-day side with Sehwag, Tendulkar and Gambhir in the top order. But those who dismiss him as a Test match specialist probably don’t realize or remember that now he has scores of 143, 178 and 179 in domestic one-day competitions – three of the highest scores made in the shorter version of the game in this country. Even if there is no place for him in the one-day side, surely, surely he should be in the frame for a Test match spot? He should at least be the reserve opener, though one could make a strong case for him being more worthy than Yuvraj Singh of a place in the Test playing 11.

Given this, then, much of the side for the 7-ODI series against Australia selects itself, except for two or three tricky spots. I am assuming Zak will be fit, since he has started bowling in the nets; and that Yuvraj won’t, since broken fingers are likely to take up to 6 weeks to heal. So –

The top 5 is straightforward – Sehwag, Tendulkar, Gambhir, Dravid and Dhoni. Gambhir is the ideal man to be vice-captain in Yuvraj’s absence, and I agree with Sehwag that Gambhir is the ideal man to be vice-captain, period. Unlike Yuvraj, Gambhir is a fixture in the side in all forms of the game; his form, attitude and commitment are unquestionable; and he has a very good relationship with Dhoni, who gave him the backing and the confidence to come good in the first place.

The batting spot up for grabs is the no. 6 spot. Virat Kohli has leapfrogged over Rohit Sharma in the India stakes at the moment. There is a part of me that isn’t entirely happy with this, because I think Rohit is, technically, a better batsman. Indeed, I think he is one of the best batsmen in India today, a certain star for the future. But there’s no question that on form, Kohli wins out, so I can see the logic in this. So – the no. 6 spot is a direct contest between Kohli and Suresh Raina. Kohli is the form player – he has made 74 in his last outing for India, and before that was top scorer in the emerging players’ tournament in Australia. But I think Raina is the better, more mature batsman. He has struggled a bit in the past couple of months, since his weakness to the short ball was exposed in the T20 World Cup. But he has shown his mettle over the past couple of years, and I think performance over two years should count for more than performance over two months.

The real problem, though, is the all-rounder’s spot, and I think Dhoni was spot on when he diagnosed this as a major problem. It looks like Harbhajan Singh, who batted at 3 and 4 in the Challenger Trophy, may be getting groomed for that no. 7 spot. In some ways, that is an intriguing thought – Bhajji’s batting has improved tremendously over the past couple of years, and he has a particularly good record against the Aussies. It will also allow us to play five frontline bowlers, which is not a bad idea given the recent struggles of our fast bowlers. But I would personally argue against it. I think there is a big gap between the duties of a no. 7 and a no. 8, and Bhajji is someone who is developing into an excellent no. 8, but doesn’t have the technique to be a long-term no. 7. One expects a no. 8 to be the occasional thorn in the flesh, to come up with the occasional match-winning cameo. But a no. 7 needs to be someone a team can rely upon to make a 50 under any situation, and Bhajji is not such a good batsman to be able to do that. The long-term solution to the problem lies in finding a good all-rounder, not in coming up with stop-gap solutions.

Unfortunately, the cupboard is rather bare on this front, which is why it is so important, in principle, to take good care of Irfan Pathan, since he is the one genuine all-rounder in the country. The Indian one-day side without Irfan is rather like the England Test side without Andrew Flintoff – the balance just isn’t right. Unfortunately, Irfan himself was injured and so missed the Challenger series, so under these circumstances I don’t see him coming right back into the thick of things against Australia.

Therefore, I really don’t know that we can do better than Yusuf Pathan at the moment. Yusuf has certainly been a disappointment for India so far, and is probably one of the people whose place is most on the line. But his talent is unquestionable. Shane Warne regards him as the cleanest hitter in the game today along with Andrew Symonds. So I think there is a case here for persistence, if only because there is no clear or better alternative on offer.

Indeed, the only two realistic alternatives are Abhisekh Nayar and Ravindra Jadeja, and I think Yusuf is a better bet than either. Nayar has had fewer opportunities, for sure, but he too is much the same type of batsman as Yusuf, a bit of a late-order slogger. And Yusuf is by far the better bowler, capable of bowling 5 or 6 overs in any given day. Jadeja, meanwhile, I think has it in him to be a frontline bowler, but I’m not too sure of his batting. His inability to up the ante was evident both in the T20 World Cup and in the Challengers, and a no. 7 who gets bogged down is not really a recipe for success. Jadeja is a good cricketer. He is someone who has proved his mettle in domestic cricket, and someone who I think has it in him to become the sort of utility cricketer that Ravi Shastri was. But somehow, I see his batting as more suited for Test cricket. I see him more as someone who is a good Test player who could develop, as Shastri did, into a good one-day player with experience, rather than the other way round. So, with Yuvraj’s place up for grabs, there may be more of a case for playing him at 7 in Tests (with Dhoni at 6), than at 7 in ODIs. For now, therefore, I would stick with Yusuf, tell him that he has the run of 7 games, and hope that he makes the most of his opportunity. And then I would spend the upcoming domestic season taking a very close look at Irfan, Nayar and Jadeja, and also looking out for other all-round possibilities. The three who are most enticing are – the Delhi stalwart Rajat Bhatia, who is one of those honest, no-nonsense cricketers who are worth their weight in gold; UP’s youngster Bhuvneshwar Kumar, who has already had one good Ranji season, and will surely come into the reckoning if he has another; and Stuart Binny, now released from the ICL and therefore someone to start taking a look at. But it’s not clear that any of these three have done enough to be thrown into a high pressure debut series against the Aussies.

In the bowling, Bhaj is the obvious choice as lead spinner, though it must be said that Amit Mishra outbowled him in the Champions Trophy. Bhaj’s performance over the past year and his record against Australia means that I’ll stick with him as the no. 1 spinner. But there is depth developing in the spin department. Both Mishra and Pragyan Ojha are quality bowlers; I still think Ramesh Powar is good enough to play for India; and youngsters like Piyush Chawla and Ravichandran Ashwin are prospects in the pipeline worth keeping an eye on. So it is important to make clear to Bhaj that he cannot take his place for granted, and that only performance and not seniority will keep him in the side.

In the pace department, Zaheer Khan’s return won’t come a moment too soon, and Ashish Nehra’s second coming is as pleasing as it is surprising. These two should have unquestionably been leading the Indian attack at this stage in their careers, and it is nice to see that might actually happen. So it is the third seamer’s spot that is most in doubt.

Ishant Sharma has come under enormous scrutiny, but here (as with Raina and Yusuf), I would opt for persistence. I think his problem is different from, say, R.P. Singh’s. R.P. has just not shown consistency at any point in his career. He is a terrific bowler, but his bowling ranges from the sublime to the ridiculous with no rhyme or reason. He needs a kick up the backside. Ishant, on the other hand, is going through a loss of form and confidence, which is a normal occurrence in the second season of someone’s career. As both Javagal Srinath and Venkatesh Prasad have pointed out, dropping him is not the answer – it will only further dent his confidence. Like Bhaj, Ishant has a good record against Australia; and it’s not clear that his most likely replacement, Munaf Patel, will turn up to work on any given day. Indeed, even in the midst of this bad form, there have been glimpses of incisive bowling, and there were some glimmers of form in the Challengers as well. What has been missing is the consistency that made him such a handful last year, as an excellent couple of overs alternates with a couple of bad ones. Having Zak back in the side will I think take a lot of pressure off him, and he’s someone I am not yet ready to give up on.

Kohli and Mishra are obvious candidates to be in the reserves, and, as I’ve already mentioned, Munaf has done enough to get a recall at the expense of R.P. Singh, my doubts about his temperament notwithstanding. My last seamer’s spot would go to Praveen Kumar, who remains one of India’s most consistent performers in the shorter format; and if Zak isn’t fit, there’s a good case to have him be in the starting line-up ahead of Munaf.

So, playing XI:

Virendra Sehwag
Sachin Tendulkar
Gautam Gambhir (V)
Rahul Dravid
Mahendra Dhoni © (W)
Suresh Raina
Yusuf Pathan
Harbhajan Singh
Zaheer Khan
Ishant Sharma
Ashish Nehra

Reserves:

Virat Kohli
Praveen Kumar
Munaf Patel
Amit Mishra

If Zaheer not fit: Praveen Kumar / Munaf Patel move into playing 11, and Sudeep Tyagi comes into reserves.

Start of a new season

2009-08-15T15:20:00.000-07:00

I must apologize for being off the blog for so long. Some of this has been due to genuine busy-ness and lack of time. And some of it, I must admit, has just been due to lack of excitement. Cricket last year had real flavor to it – a terrific resurrection from the WC 2007 debacle; two big series against the Aussies; the novelty of IPL; the emotional retirements of Ganguly and Kumble. Compared to that, this year has just fallen a bit flat, and I have found it hard to get as excited. While the win in New Zealand was nice, it was against the weakest NZ team I have ever seen in the 25+ years I have followed cricket.

But now, we are at the cusp of a new season, and the selectors will select the teams for the tri-series in Sri Lanka and the Champions Trophy tomorrow. I must confess that this season doesn’t particularly excite me either. There is virtually non-stop cricket between September and May, but only one Test series of consequence in that time, against Sri Lanka. That should be a good series – the Lankans are developing into a seriously good side. But this sort of scheduling is indicative of the way the BCCI is itself primarily responsible for the decline of the longer form of the game.

Much as 50-50 cricket fails to excite me much, this is an interesting time to watch team selection, because in a sense, we are approaching the home stretch towards the 2011 World Cup. So this is when, really, the core of the team should already be settled, and when some serious work should be done in identifying and grooming those who will occupy the peripheries.

The good news is – the core of the team already exists. Sehwag, Gambhir, Yuvraj and Dhoni with the bat; Zaheer and Harbhajan with the ball – all of these are experienced players who have stepped up to occupy the role of leaders within the team. Of course, Zak will miss the one-day arrangements coming up, and Viru will miss at least the tri-series in Sri Lanka. But the nucleus is there.

This is why – much as I admire him, much as I think he was hard done by when he was dropped from the one-day side two years ago – I would not bring Rahul Dravid back into the one-day side. The vulnerabilities of some of our youngsters against the short ball were evident in the T20 World Cup; but those vulnerabilities are not going to be ironed out by dropping them. At this point, it makes little sense to bring Dravid back as a stop-gap measure unless he is going to be a central part of the team all the way to the World Cup. And I don’t think that can be guaranteed at all. It would make more sense to toughen up the likes of Raina and Rohit Sharma and give them more international experience. Ultimately, those with a weakness against the short ball never develop a foolproof technique against it – the likes of Ganguly and Steve Waugh had technical shortcomings against the short ball throughout their career. It is just that some people develop the temperament to succeed against the short ball in spite of their technical weaknesses. Now is the time to see if the likes of Raina and Rohit have that temperament.

I would, however, retract my insistence from earlier in the year and have Sachin back in the side. It is clear that we need greater experience and technical solidity, especially given that Viru is absent or will be making a comeback after a long layoff. This means that the top 4 in Sri Lanka are pretty straightforward. Gambhir and Tendulkar open. I would have Yuvraj batting at 3. There may still be a question mark against him in Tests, but he is an imperious one-day batsman, and I think that, certainly in Viru’s absence, he needs to be as far up the order as possible. Certainly in Sri Lanka, it is better to have him batting higher up the order, since he tends to struggle against choking Sri Lankan slow bowlers in the middle overs. He would be better off batting when the ball comes on to the bat. Dhoni has now become the perfect fulcrum of our one-day line-up – really, adopting the role that Dravid played so well from 2002-2007 – and he would be the obvious no. 4.

The question really concerns the batsmen who follow, the periphery to support the core. I would let go of Ravindra Jadeja from the reckoning – he may have talent, but he doesn’t seem quite ready yet for the big league. And even before coming to the Rainas and the Rohits, the first person I would pencil in is Dinesh Karthik.

DK is one of those people who needs to be talked about a little more. He doesn’t have the obvious talent of a Raina or a Rohit. But he is in fact an extremely versatile batsman – someone who has shown that he can play with a straight bat and open in Test matches, and at the same time can come in the slog overs of a T20 game in the lower middle order and start improvising straight away. Importantly, he has a really strong temperament, and is a terrific team player. He also has a very strong cricketing intelligence, with a wonderful ability to read situations – a street-smart cricketer, rather like Gautam Gambhir, or Tillakaratne Dilshan. He was a stand-out performer in the West Indies, so that form has to be rewarded with persistence. Most importantly, I think someone who could be the top run-scorer in a Test series, as opener, in England, has what it takes to succeed at international level in all forms of the game. We don’t know that yet about Raina or Rohit; we do know that about DK.

I think DK has suffered because he has been thought of as a reserve wicket-keeper who can bat. So, he often doesn’t come into the reckoning unless Dhoni is injured; and then, gets judged on the basis of his keeping. DK is not a great keeper; and let’s face it, it is hard to really turn oneself on behind the stumps on a one-off basis consistently, knowing that however well you do, you’ll be dropped again once the skipper returns. What we have overlooked in the process, however, is that DK is amongst the better batsmen in the country. And if he is groomed now, he really could be part of the core of the team going into the next World Cup. He needs to be thought of as a batsman who can keep, rather than a keeper who can bat.

And really, that’s what Dhoni was thought of when he first arrived, was it not? For one-dayers, it’s just fine to have a batsman-keeper keep. And I do think that, even if Dhoni is the better keeper, it is a quite attractive prospect to have DK keep in one-dayers. Ultimately, the pressure of keeping and captaining in all three forms of the game will take its toll on Dhoni, both physically and mentally. He has already dealt with back problems; and by the end of the IPL and through the T20 World Cup, some of the Captain Cool image was fraying as well. It will take pressure off Dhoni, and help the team no end, to have someone else keep in at least one form of the game, especially given how much one-day cricket we are playing this coming season. It could help DK’s wicket-keeping as well.

The no. 6 spot then is the most contentious. Raina and Rohit are obviously leading candidates; but they will be threatened now by Virat Kohli, who had a sensational series in Australia with the triumphant Emerging Players side. Kohli would be the form pick, especially with Raina coming off injury; but I would stick my neck out and stick to Raina and Rohit. This is because these are two players whom we have invested in a great deal over the past couple of years. I think we need to decide that these are players we need to continue investing in even if they go through an occasional bad patch, or show occasional vulnerabilities. Indeed, I would put Raina straight back into the playing 11. I think he is a unique talent; but more than that, I see him just constantly improving. When he first came into the side, he had flashes of brilliance, but little substance or staying power. He has now gone back and worked on that in domestic cricket, and is mentally a much tougher player, the sort of player who has shown an ability to play match-defining innings in shorter versions of the game. So I have the confidence that he will be able to overcome some of his technical shortcomings as well, or at least paper it over with mental toughness. Rohit is a sublime talent – perhaps, really, only Viru and Sachin are his equals in Indian cricket on talent alone – but he has yet to show the consistency, or temperament, that Raina has started showing.

As for Kohli, I still have my doubts. When he is good, he is very good. But I think Ray Jennings’ comment that he thinks he is bigger than the game is worth noting. Kohli just hasn’t shown the consistency, even in the IPL let alone in longer forms of the game, to show that he is ready to leapfrog over Raina and Rohit. He certainly ought to be giving Rohit especially some anxious moments; but I want him to string together some consistent performances over months, and not just be recalled on the basis of one strong series. (Indeed, the person who has strung performances over years, not just months, is Badrinath, so while I think Raina and Rohit deserve persistence at the moment, I would put Badri ahead of Kohli in my pecking order. It is ironic that when the short-ball problem was identified in the youngsters, the selectors went right back to considering Dravid, when in Badri they have a youngster who is technically sound, and who can be groomed to play the role that Dravid has played in the past in the forthcoming World Cup. Badri seems doomed to be the invisible man of Indian cricket. It is ironic that even the Srikkanth selection committee, which seems to be intent on giving virtually every Tamilnadu player in contention a chance in Indian colors, continues to overlook Badri).

The no. 7 spot is the all-rounder’s, and I would stick to Yusuf Pathan. He hasn’t yet fulfilled his potential in 50-50 cricket for India, but I would apply the same principle that I apply to Raina and Rohit. The selectors have identified him, he has enormous talent, and he needs to be groomed and given a proper run before he is given up on. Shane Warne thinks that, after Andrew Symonds, Yusuf is the cleanest striker in world cricket, and that is an assessment I would take seriously. His off-break bowling is a more than useful foil to Harbhajan’s. Abhisekh Nayar is his major competition, but I want to see more of Yusuf before I start playing musical chairs with this position.

As far as the bowling is concerned, Harbhajan and Ishant Sharma are certainties. I think the second and third seamers should be certainties as well. R.P. Singh has rediscovered his mo-jo, so should be the obvious new ball partner with Ishant. Like DK, RP has had patches of inconsistency. But like DK, RP has shown that he can succeed at the highest level in all forms of the game, and that means that as long as he is in form he should be considered a core part of the team. He certainly enjoys bowling in South Africa, which will make him a factor in the Champions Trophy. Praveen Kumar, meanwhile, is undoubtedly the best third seamer in the country. He has done virtually nothing wrong in the one-dayers he has played for India, and I love his combative, wicket-to-wicket bowling. He has done particularly well against the Lankans, being very successful against the likes of Jayasuriya (who likes width, and gets none of it from PK), and I think his selection should be a no-brainer.

In terms of reserve bowlers, Pragyan Ojha should slot in easily as the reserve spinner. There is some talk of Amit Mishra taking his place, and it is clear that Mishra is Narendra Hirwani’s protégé, so a switch cannot be ruled out. But that would be unfair on Ojha. I have been harsh on him in the past, but he has really blossomed this year, and I was very impressed with the way in which he constantly attacked, with lovely loop, flight and turn, in the IPL. Before that, he was extremely successful in Sri Lanka, so if the situation calls for an extra spinner (especially, say, against New Zealand), then an Ojha for PK swap might make sense.

I think 14 players are more than enough for a tri-nation series that consists of only two games (three, if we reach the final), so my final selection for Sri Lanka will be the reserve seamer. This will be my most controversial selection, and it is a selection we are absolutely unlikely to see made tomorrow. Indeed, it is almost certain that the selectors will pick Ashish Nehra as the fourth seamer. But I am still unconvinced about Nehra’s claims. He has always had a suspect temperament, is prone to injuries, and basically has done nothing to merit selection other than in the IPL. He now talks about how he plans to “lead” the attack in Zaheer’s absence. Zak is arguably the best swing bowler in world cricket today – and Nehra will step into his shoes on the basis of a few four-over spells? I don’t think so.

I still have faith in Irfan Pathan, and if I was the selector he would be part of my one-day plans still, making up the 14th player. Indeed, I think Irfan’s exclusion from the list of 30 probables is one of the scandals of recent times, but one that has gone completely unremarked upon.

First – let us look simply in terms of ability. Irfan is the one genuine all-rounder in Indian cricket, bar none. He is the one person who could get into the side as a third seamer, and, if necessary, slot in at no. 7 even in a Test match side. We have a number of bits-and-pieces all-rounders in Yusuf, Nayar or Jadeja, but we really cannot afford to sideline the one person who could conceivably become an all-rounder in the league of Mitchell Johnson, if not quite Flintoff or Kallis.

Second – performance. It is true that Irfan has not set the world alight of late. But in fact, he hasn’t been given the security to really feel a part of the team. Over the past couple of years, he has hardly been selected for more than three one-day games at a trot; and his selection and dropping seems to operate on a random- series-to-series basis. No one can really establish their claims when being treated in such a haphazard manner.

Irfan’s career really is a tragedy in that regard. First, he was talked up as being more of a bowler than he really was. He was a good swing bowler, but no Wasim Akram, and having to live up to those comparisons at the age of 19 did him no good. Then, there were the horrible Greg Chappell experiments when he was asked to open the batting, even in Tests, so he started thinking of himself as a batting all-rounder, neglecting his bowling in the process. Irfan is a fine batsman – he plays straight, and he has all the shots. But he is not an opener or a no. 3, in any form of the game. And since his post-Chappell dropping, he’s never been given a proper run in the side.

This is in spite of the fact that he has some memorable performances of note in recent times – none more so than being man of the match in one of our most famous Test wins of all time, at Perth. Again, someone who is good enough to be man of the match in a victorious Test match in Australia, to break their 16-match winning streak, has to be good enough to play international cricket. It is the same principle as DK and RP – these are people who have shown they can succeed at the highest level, and shouldn’t be given up on. And if we are now at a stage where IPL performances count as much for selection as Test performances, then Irfan, over both editions, has been every bit as effective for Punjab in that format as Nehra has been for Mumbai / Delhi. It is just when he plays for India that he seems to lose his confidence – which clearly is a reflection of insecurity, not inability.

The real scandal is not that Irfan has been dropped from the side; that happens, and on form, it can be argued that Irfan doesn’t make the cut. The real scandal is that he is not even amongst the 30 probables. A few months ago, this very selection committee risked Dhoni walking out on the captaincy by insisting on selecting Irfan ahead of RP; and now, less than a year later, he isn’t even good enough to make a list of 30, a list that contains the likes of Pankaj Singh, who can’t even hold down his place in the playing 11 of an IPL team? That defies belief.

If the problem was Irfan’s form, then he should have been sent to Australia with the Emerging Players side; a person of his talent has to be given all the opportunities he can get to play himself back into form and confidence. Clearly, then, the reasons for his exclusion, as Yusuf has publicly opined, are non-cricketing. I wonder how much this has to do with personality issues with Dhoni? It was clear that Dhoni wanted RP ahead of him; it is clear that Irfan plays much better under Yuvraj, for Punjab, than he has ever done under Dhoni. But are we really going to let the best all-rounder in the country simply slip through the cracks for non-cricketing reasons? Or will he be pulled back, in utterly random fashion, for some future series, have a gun put to his head and be made to perform at short notice, without any security in the side or any conversation about his long term place in it? Irfan’s treatment speaks to the arbitrariness that has been the bane of Indian cricket for too long. At first sight, it had seemed that this selection committee was above that; but I guess that was too much to hope for.

My teams:

For Sri Lanka tri-series

Playing XI:

Gautam Gambhir
Sachin Tendulkar
Yuvraj Singh (V)
Mahendra Dhoni ©
Dinesh Karthik (W)
Suresh Raina
Yusuf Pathan
Harbhajan Singh
Praveen Kumar
R.P. Singh
Ishant Sharma

Reserves:

Rohit Sharma
Irfan Pathan
Pragyan Ojha

For Champions Trophy

Playing XI:

Virendra Sehwag (V)
Sachin Tendulkar
Gautam Gambhir
Yuvraj Singh
Mahendra Dhoni ©
Dinesh Karthik (W)
Yusuf Pathan
Harbhajan Singh
Praveen Kumar
R.P. Singh
Ishant Sharma

Reserves:

Suresh Raina
Rohit Sharma
Irfan Pathan
Pragyan Ojha

Back-up [in case Sehwag still unfit]:

Subramaniam Badrinath

IPL 2009 predictions

2009-04-12T21:27:00.000-07:00

It is IPL time, and I am ashamed to say that I am looking forward to it. This blog post contains my analysis of each of the teams, and I then stick my neck out to make predictions so that I can look silly afterwards. Here goes …

RAJASTHAN ROYALS

General thoughts

The Royals, of course, are the team to look out for after their sensational win last year. Their performance, in many ways, made the IPL so worthwhile – it was one of those fairy tales that sports throws up every once in a while, making it worth watching. This time, however, they will be in the unenviable position of defending a reputation, with a bunch of still relatively inexperienced players, many of whom would not have encountered South African conditions before. Hence, doing a repeat is going to be hard. But after their performance last year, only a fool would write off Shane Warne and co. One thing they have going for them is that they have already gelled as a team, which is still not the case with a number of other franchises.

Strengths

The fact that they are already gelled as a team will help them. But their biggest strength, as was the case last year, has to be Shane Warne, the bowler, the captain, the all-round inspiration and provocateur. His success will be the living proof of the idiocy of John Buchanan’s multiple captain theory, and I think that knowing that alone will spur him to great heights.

Weaknesses

The inexperience of many in South Africa aside, I think their major weakness this time will be their bowling. Last time, having Shane Watson play the role of full-fledged all-rounder really provided depth to their bowling, and Sohail Tanvir was marvelous. This time, Watson will only be available as a batsman for two weeks, and then he will leave to play for Australia. They will miss his hit-the-deck, seam-up bowling, and they will miss his talismanic presence through the second half of the tournament. He will be hard to replace by a single player, and a number of players will have to step up to fill his shoes. Tanvir will also be tough to replace. Of his three possible replacements, Shaun Tait is still coming back to big-time cricket; Morne Morkel has shown himself to be notoriously temperamental; and Tyron Henderson, who is probably the safest bet of the three in the T20 format, is new to IPL, so it will be interesting to see how he performs.

Their best team

If Graeme Smith is fully fit, then at least as long as Watson is around, Rajasthan’s batting line-up should be much the same last year. Mohammad Kaif was the one disappointment then, so he will be eager to come good this time round. Warne, Munaf and Sid Trivedi are certainties with the ball, and I think the one question mark would concern Tanvir’s replacement – my choice would be Henderson. The one unequivocal failure for Rajasthan last year was their unimpressive keeper, Mahesh Rawat. This time, they have drafted in the Madhya Pradesh wicket-keeper, Naman Ojha, who is amongst the probables for the T20 World Cup. Ojha is a pretty useful bat, who even opens for MP (though he is likely to bat much lower in this line-up), and this could be his chance to shine and stake some higher claims.

Likely XI:

Graeme Smith
Swapnil Asnodkar
Yusuf Pathan
Shane Watson
Mohammad Kaif
Ravindra Jadeja
Tyron Henderson
Naman Ojha (W)
Shane Warne ©
Munaf Patel
Siddharth Trivedi

X-factor / player to watch out for

Last year, Ravindra Jadeja came into the national reckoning on the back of a strong IPL performance. Unlike some of the others who had a good IPL, Jadeja backed it up with a sensational domestic season, to force himself briefly into the Indian one-day line-up. Crucially, that domestic performance included not just lots of runs, but Jadeja being the highest wicket-taker in the Ranji Trophy. Last year, Warne didn’t bowl Jadeja at all in the IPL. This time, especially in the absence of Watson’s services, Jadeja’s left-arm spin could be as crucial as his batting. Quality all-rounders are few and far between in Indian cricket, so watching Jadeja’s progress will be exciting. Jadeja is competing with his Rajasthan teammate Yusuf Pathan for the all-rounder’s spot in the Indian one-day XI, and a strong performance from him here (especially with the ball) could make things interesting. Yusuf is yet to establish himself with any measure of consistency in the Indian line-up, and Jadeja is certainly the better bowler. Watch out for a high-stakes tussle between the two Royals teammates in this tournament.

Conclusion / Prediction

Rajasthan’s batting is definitely their stronger suit than their bowling, though if Jadeja starts producing with the ball then watch out. I think they will definitely make the semi-finals, and probably make the finals. But lifting the trophy a second time will be a tall order, since especially in crunch games in South Africa, teams with stronger bowling attacks are likely to have the advantage.

CHENNAI SUPER KINGS

General thoughts

Chennai were nearly as impressive as Rajasthan the last time around. They arguably had the best batting line-up in the league, though their bowling was occasionally weak. This time their bowling is strengthened hugely, at least for the first part of the tournament, by the drafting of Andrew Flintoff. If he is fit, then of course he can always be an impact player in any form of the game, though of late he has turned more into a strike bowler who can bat rather than a genuine all-rounder. A new ball attack of Flintoff and Makhaya Ntini will be as good as any there is in the league.

Strengths

There are many. The key for them, as for Rajasthan, is the captain. Warne is probably a better strategist, but Dhoni is every bit as talismanic a presence, and is one of the best middle-order batsmen in the world in this format. Generally, their middle order has a very strong look to it – Raina, Dhoni and Badrinath are all India players or aspirants, and they have two quality all-rounders in Flintoff and Albie Morkel. Their bowling also looks much better than last time – not just because of Flintoff, but because Ntini will enjoy conditions in South Africa more than he did in India. Indeed, I think Ntini could be the bowler of the tournament. He has been overshadowed by Dale Steyn for South Africa, while always being a threat himself, and the IPL could be his chance to remind people just what a potent bowler he can be. He has always been a better bowler in South Africa than abroad, and the shift of the tournament to SA will help him more than most.

Weaknesses

The biggest weakness for Chennai is probably their top order, which doesn’t provide as much of a cushion to the strong middle order as it might. Matthew Hayden hasn’t played much competitive cricket for a while, and he looked well past his best the last time that he did. Last year, Parthiv Patel looked quite out of his league as a T20 opener, and it is likely that Murali Vijay will get a look in as Hayden’s opening partner. Vijay is a good bat, and this is a great opportunity for him to stake some claims with selectors; but frankly, he looks more suited to longer versions of the game, and is relatively inexperienced in this format. I also wonder about Manpreet Gony. He was the surprise package for Chennai last time, but has done next to nothing since. Maybe he is someone who is ideally suited for T20; or maybe last year was just a one-off. The openers though are the biggest concern, given the disproportionate influence a strong start can have in this form of the game.

Their best team

Much of the team selects itself. Certainly 3-7 are straightforward choices, and Ntini, Gony and Balaji will join Flintoff and Morkel to provide fast bowling options. The tricky choice is going to concern the fourth foreign player, which will have to be a toss-up between Hayden and Muthiah Muralitharan. Murali is obviously more the form player. But he was a huge disappointment last year, and if Hayden is dropped, it isn’t clear who will open with Vijay. Given his experience, even an out-of-form Hayden may be worth a punt at the top, at least initially. In that case, the spin bowling spot will go to the Tamilnadu off-spinner Ravichandran Ashwin. Ashwin was the highest wicket-taker in the Challenger Trophy, which was enough to push him into the probables list for the T20 World Cup. This will be a great opportunity for him to perform at a higher stage and grab some more attention.

Likely XI:

Matthew Hayden
Murali Vijay
Suresh Raina
Albie Morkel
Mahendra Dhoni © (W)
Subramaniam Badrinath
Andrew Flintoff
Ravichandran Ashwin
Manpreet Gony
Laxmipaty Balaji
Makhaya Ntini

X-factor / player to watch out for

Albie Morkel. Flintoff is more famous, but has done little of note with the bat of late, and has constant fitness concerns. Morkel, though, is genuinely dangerous with bat and ball; will be available for the whole tournament; and will be playing on home ground. He has an opportunity to be the Shane Watson of this year’s tournament.

Conclusion / prediction

I think there is little to separate Chennai and Rajasthan, though this time their roles are reversed from last year – Chennai probably has the better bowling, Rajasthan (because of their top order) arguably has fewer concerns with their batting. I see Chennai as certain semi-finalists, though my gut feeling is that is as far as they will get. But they are good enough to reach the finals. I don’t see them winning, but they are certainly once again strong contenders. Flintoff’s fitness, and Ntini’s effectiveness, could have a major bearing on how they fare.

KING’S XI PUNJAB

General thoughts

Punjab was one of the most exciting teams to watch last year. They are full of flair players, and two of them – Sreesanth and Irfan Pathan – really stood up to be counted (which is not always the case when they play for India). In addition, they had Shaun Marsh emerge as the find of the tournament. But this year, I think Punjab has more troubles than most. Brett Lee’s form has gone completely missing since his divorce last summer (and in any case, he will only be available for the first two weeks); Sreesanth is missing the tournament with injury; Marsh is returning from a long lay-off from injury; Jayawardene and Sangakkara will be playing cricket for the first time since being shot at, and neither of them were in much form before that. Punjab doesn’t have a solid, dependable player with either bat or ball – it is a team full of flair players, all of whom are form players. And it is not clear that many of them are in much form.

Strengths

Not that many, to be honest, and they are really going to need something special from Yuvraj Singh to stand a chance of even making the semis. Yuvi was a disappointment last year; but, his uncertain Test technique notwithstanding, he has been in tremendous form in the shorter versions of the game of late. Punjab really needs Yuvi to lead their batting line-up. Their only hope is to post big scores and then hope for the best from their bowlers, and Yuvi is the most likely person to help them post those scores. Yuvi didn’t look all that impressive as captain last year; but strategies and tactics aside, Punjab need him to lead by example this time.

Weaknesses

Where to start? Their strong players are doubtful in terms of form or fitness, Yuvraj excepted. But the biggest worry has to be their seam attack. In the absence of Sreesanth, that is an attack of Lee, Irfan Pathan and VRV Singh. Lee and VRV are both coming off injury, and neither was in much form before they were injured. This means that the seam attack effectively depends upon Irfan – which, given his own notorious temperament, is a frightening thought. The responsibility might bring out the best in him, and certainly he was very good last year; but an attack that depends on him to lead it is not an attack that one can expect great things from.

Their best team

Marsh, Mahela, Sanga and Lee will be the foreign players; Yuvraj is a certainty; and Lee, Irfan and VRV are likely to constitute their seam attack. They just don’t have very many other seamers to call upon, so if they had any sense they would play both their spinners, Piyush Chawla and Ramesh Powar. This still leaves two batting spots. Last year, a number of people were tried for those spots – Karan Goel, Uday Kaul, Sunny Sohal – and all of them looked completely out of their depth. I think the best bets there might be Tanmay Srivastava, who is a very consistent performer for UP and who could be a sheet anchor that others bat around; and the talented young Goan all-rounder Ryan Ninan. Playing for one of the weaker teams in India, Ninan has not managed to catch the attention purely with statistics; but those who have seen him speak highly of his abilities. He is primarily a batsman with talent and flair, but his off-spin bowling could prove a useful addition to a weak attack.

Likely XI:

Shaun Marsh
Tanmay Srivastava
Yuvraj Singh ©
Kumar Sangakkara (W)
Mahela Jayawardene
Ryan Ninan
Irfan Pathan
Ramesh Powar
Piyush Chawla
Brett Lee
VRV Singh

X-factor / player to look out for

Ramesh Powar. Part of this is bias – portly Powar is one of my favorite cricketers. I love his attitude, I love the natural flight and loop with which he bowls, and I think he has been one of the most badly treated cricketers in Indian cricket of late. But bias apart, I think he could be a real factor. One thing that the last IPL showed us was the value of good spin bowling in this format, because taking wickets has such a large impact in T20, and wicket-taking spinners are worth their weight in gold. Powar is such a spinner; he showed through his fine performance in the one-day series in England that he can bowl most effectively abroad, even in conditions that don’t help spinners much (of course, he was rewarded for that performance by being dropped); and he is one of the few players in this Punjab line-up who has actually been in form of late. Yuvraj needs to ensure that Powar is part of the starting line-up, and regularly; he could be one of the few silver linings in the Punjab cloud.

Conclusions / predictions

I don’t see any chance of Punjab making the semis this year, and the only question of interest should be whether they can avoid the wooden spoon. There are some teams that have as many problems as Punjab, so it is quite possible that they won’t end up at the bottom. Beyond that, I can’t imagine that much good will come of this tournament for them.

DELHI DAREDEVILS

General thoughts

Delhi was an odd mix last year. When they were good, they were very good. And they were good when their fearsome top order fired, which was most of the time. But the top order was supported poorly by a flimsy middle order, and that ultimately let them down. They also had poor luck with the weather. At the end of the day, they scraped into the semis largely because Mumbai self-destructed in a crucial game; so it has to be said that, on the whole, Delhi underperformed in spite of some moments of sheer brilliance. This time, though, I think they will be a team to watch out for. They have traded the dependable Shikhar Dhawan, but have drafted in the exciting Aussie David Warner, so their top order, if anything, is even stronger this time round than last. And Daniel Vettori, who is one of the best bowlers in the world in this format, will be available for the whole tournament. Expect great things from this team.

Strengths

Sehwag and Gambhir formed the most fearsome opening combination in the tournament last year, and since then, they have continued to be destructive for India in every form of the game. A strong start counts for a huge amount in T20, so in a sense, a batting order that is strong at the top and weak in the middle (like Delhi’s) makes for a better line-up than one that is weak at the top and strong in the middle (like Chennai’s). Viru may have disappointed in the Tests in New Zealand, but his form in the one-dayers was as destructive as ever. And Gambhir is playing the cricket of his lifetime. He was already a star in the T20 World Cup in South Africa, so he will enjoy the conditions and continue to be one of the key batsmen in the tournament. I think Vettori will be another key player for them. He loves bowling in this format, and was a star in the T20 World Cup in South Africa. His lower-order batting skills will also be crucial.

Weaknesses

The middle order remains a bit of a question mark. Neither Dinesh Karthik nor Manoj Tiwary did very much for them last year, and that’s a problem at the fag end of an innings, especially in a tight chase. Since then, DK has been in fine domestic form, but Tiwary has done little of note even in the Ranji Trophy. There was speculation that he would be traded to Kolkata, and frankly, Delhi would have done better to retain Dhawan and get rid of Tiwary. Like last year, it’s the middle order that Delhi would be worried about this year, though if DK carries his domestic form into this tournament then some of that worry will be assuaged.

Their best team

Sehwag, Gambhir and Warner will be at the top, though if I was the team management I would send Warner out to open with Viru. This way, Gambhir can play at 3, which will help impart some stability to the middle order and mid-innings. The no. 4 spot is a toss-up between A.B. de Villiers and Tillakaratne Dilshan. Both disappointed last year, but both have been in terrific form for their countries since. In South African conditions, AB should get the nod first. Vettori and Mishra will form the spin duo, while McGrath will lead the seam attack. V. Yo Mahesh was most impressive last year, and should partner him. The third seamer will be a toss-up. The leading candidates would be the two left-armers, Ashish Nehra and Pradeep Sangwan, with Nehra having the advantage of having played in South Africa. However, I would take a punt on young Umesh Yadav, on whom more below.

Likely XI:

David Warner
Virendra Sehwag ©
Gautam Gambhir
A.B. de Villiers
Dinesh Karthik (W)
Manoj Tiwary
Daniel Vettori
Amit Mishra
V. Yo Mahesh
Glenn McGrath
Umesh Yadav

X-factor / playing to watch out for

I would like to see what Umesh Yadav is capable of. That was a very clever pick by Delhi. Only 19, he has had a searing first year of domestic cricket for Vidharba. He is quick, very quick, and had Rahul Dravid hopping before cleaning him up in a Duleep Trophy game. The other tear-away quicks that India has brought in of late haven’t lived up to their billing – VRV Singh has faded away completely, while Munaf Patel has settled into being a line-and-length medium pacer in the mold of Angus Fraser. Delhi’s other seamers are all military medium pace, so Yadav will give them something different. He will also enjoy bowling in South African conditions. Regardless of the role he plays for Delhi, he will benefit greatly from his stint with the team, especially since Delhi’s bowling coaches are T.A. Sekhar and Dennis Lillee (not to mention the benefits of playing alongside McGrath). Watch this young lad’s progress – it could have a bearing on Indian cricket in years to come.

Conclusions / prediction

In terms of quality, there is little to separate Delhi, Chennai and Rajasthan, though the Royals probably have the weakest bowling attack of the three. However, I am going to stick my neck out and say that Delhi has the best chance of winning of the three. This is because top order batting and wicket-taking spin bowling have disproportionate effects in T20 cricket. Delhi’s top 3 are scary good, and they have the best spinner in the world in this format in the ranks, supported by another spinner who showed last year that he too could be a match-winner. They also have a terrific fielding outfit, with de Villiers alone worth 10 runs a game in the field. And finally, unlike with Rajasthan and Chennai, their key foreign players will be available for the duration of the tournament. I think these guys have what it takes to go all the way.

MUMBAI INDIANS

General thoughts

Mumbai was a disappointment last year. They were the most expensive franchise, and the most star-studded, but spent the early part of the tournament worried about Tendulkar’s injury and Harbhajan Singh’s shenanigans. And then, when they recovered to have a shot at the semis, they self-destructed in a crucial game. This year they have made a big acquisition in J.P. Duminy, and look again like a very well balanced side. Only a fool will write them off completely, so I won’t do so. And yet; and yet …

Strengths

They have many. Two of their weak links from last year, Sachin and Bhajji, are now playing very well; they have acquired Zaheer Khan from Bangalore; and they have two quality all-rounders in J.P. Duminy and Dwayne Bravo, both of whom will be available for the whole tournament. They have class at the top of the order, quality and versatility in the middle, and a strong bowling attack. They need to be taken very seriously.

Weaknesses

I think Shaun Pollock will be hard to replace. He was terrific with the ball last year, and his lower order batting has always been vital in any form of the game. Zak replaces him as a bowler, and Duminy comes in as a batting all-rounder, but given that Mumbai has traded Ashish Nehra to Delhi, I think they are still one quality seamer short. Lasith Malinga and Dilhara Fernando will be fighting to partner Zak with the new ball, but the former is coming off a long injury, while the latter is notoriously unreliable. Zak himself can occasionally go for a few, even when bowling well, so against a team that has a strong top order, like Delhi, they could struggle.

Their best team

Jayuasuriya and Sachin will obviously open, and Duminy, Bravo and Abhisekh Nayar will form a strong trio of all-rounders at 4, 5 and 6. Yogesh Takawale was most impressive behind the stumps last year, and should retain the keeper’s spot. Zak, Bhajji and Dhawal Kulkarni are certainties with the ball, and, if fit, Malinga would be a better bet than Fernando as Zak’s new ball partner. So the only question really concerns Robin Uthappa’s replacement at 3. They have the option of playing Shikhar Dhawan, who was so good for Delhi last year, but who has done little of note since. I would personally prefer Ajinkya Rahane, an extremely talented opening batsman who has been in phenomenal form on the domestic circuit. Rahane is amongst the probables for the T20 World Cup, and on form, makes a more compelling case than Dhawan.

Likely XI:

Sanath Jayasuriya
Sachin Tendulkar ©
Ajinka Rahane
J.P. Duminy
Dwayne Bravo
Abhisekh Nayar
Yogesh Takawale (W)
Harbhajan Singh
Zaheer Khan
Lasith Malinga
Dhawal Kulkarni

X-factor / player to watch out for

Obviously, Duminy. He has been one of the most exciting players in world cricket over the past few months, and is one of those players who have the ability to make the sort of all-round impact than Shane Watson made last year. He was an expensive acquisition, so there will be pressure on him. It will be interesting to see how he adapts to this challenge.

Conclusions / predictions

There is so much that is good about this side, and I certainly expect them to reach the semis. But somehow, I don’t see them going all the way, or even making the finals. Some of this is just gut feeling. Basically, their leadership trio of Sachin, Pollock (now the coach) and Jayasuriya are champions; but none of them have had that extra aggression, that aura, that oomph, to be successful captains. Each one of them, indeed, was quite mediocre when leading his respective country, even though each of them is such a thinking cricketer. In T20, having a captain who can do something extraordinary, who can think on his feet, who can make something special happen at the spur of the moment, is crucial in a crunch game. Warne and Dhoni have proven themselves to have that ability; I think, based on what I saw last year, that Viru potentially does as well, his poor captaincy in the Napier Test notwithstanding. I just don’t think Sachin has that, and I don’t think anyone in the Mumbai leadership team has it. They will play good, solid, professional cricket. But will they play inspired cricket? I have my doubts.

KOLKATA KNIGHT RIDERS

General thoughts

Last year, they were a talented outfit that didn’t quite get it together. This year, with Chris Gayle available for some of the tournament and Brendon McCullum available for all of it, I thought they would be dangerous floaters – until John Buchanan came up with his ludicrous multiple captains theory. Now, I feel that Kolkata will have enough off-field problems to field many inches of column space in the weeks to come. Lucky for Buchanan the tournament has been moved to South Africa – Calcutta would have been too hot for him to handle!

Strengths

Kolkata has some pretty talented players, though the two key ones are the ones we saw too little or nothing of last year, McCullum and Gayle. Gayle will only be available for two weeks, but he can be as dangerous as Sehwag at the top of the order, and his off-spin is more than useful. McCullum, I think, is simply remarkable. He is yet to show consistency as a Test batsman, but he has already, more than amply, demonstrated just how devastating he can be in the shorter formats. His availability for the duration of the tournament will be significant for Kolkata, and make their batting far more solid than it was last year.

Weaknesses

John Buchanan. He was hailed as a great coach for what he did with Australia – but the team was good enough that anything he did would probably have been met with success. Frankly, I think that the multiple captains idea is ridiculous. T20, perhaps more than any other format, hinges on critical moments in the game, and having one person who can lead, think on his feet, take charge, and take responsibility is crucial. This was evidenced last year, when the two teams with the best captains made the finals. But more than the merits or demerits of the experiment, the problem lies with the way Buchanan went about implementing it. Clearly, he did not take Ganguly properly into confidence, and to head into a tournament where the captain and coach aren’t thinking together, and don’t trust each other, is hardly an ideal situation – echoes of Greg Chappell all over again. The other captains / leaders / strategists / whatever they are called haven’t worked with Ganguly, or with each other; you would think that even if this hare-brained idea was to work, it could only work amongst people who have already played with each other extensively. If Buchanan thinks that Ganguly doesn’t merit an automatic place in the XI and should be replaced by another captain, then he should have just had the courage and honesty to insist upon that rather than play these shenanigans. I think Buchanan has ensured that whatever chance Kolkata had to ensure some upward mobility has now gone up in a puff of dust. If KKR wants to be a force to reckon with in the coming years, they need to be thinking of another coach down the line.

There are also problems in the line-up, and the biggest concerns the absence of a quality all-rounder. Gayle sort of fits the bill, but he’s around only for two weeks, and he’ll be the first to admit that he’s primarily a batsman who can turn his arm around. In T20 cricket, having all-rounders is very important. You can get away with it if, like Delhi, you have superlative specialists (though I personally think that the way he is batting, Vettori qualifies as an all-rounder for them). But Bengal’s excuse for an all-rounder is L.R. Shukla. Compare that to, say, Mumbai, who have Duminy, Bravo, Nayar and Jayasuriya, each of whom is capable of a quick 50 and 4 overs. I am amazed that Kolkata spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Mashrafe Mortaza, who may not even make their final XI, and completely ignored another Bangladeshi, Shakib al Hasan, who is the no. 1 ranked all-rounder in one-day cricket according to the ICC rankings. An indication again of the complete absence of thought and planning that seems to be going into this franchise.

Their best team

I would open with Gayle and Ganguly, only because I think McCullum (like Gambhir for Delhi) is better played in the middle order, where his versatility will be handy. David Hussey and the impressive Wriddhiman Saha would be other middle-order batsmen. I would also give a chance to young Cheteshwar Pujara, who has been such a success in domestic cricket for Saurashtra. It will be interesting to see how he can adapt to this format, given that he primarily a technical player. But KKR had a flimsy batting line-up the last time around, and Pujara could provide some crucial solidity. Shukla will be their “all-rounder”, such as he is, and Ishant Sharma and Ashok Dinda will lead their attack. I would play both their international spinners, Ajantha Mendis and Murali Kartik, since I think Mendis is much more likely to make a mark than Mortaza.

Likely XI:

Chris Gayle (C?)
Sourav Ganguly (C?)
Cheteshwar Pujara
Brendon McCullum (C?)
David Hussey (C?)
Wriddhiman Saha (W)
L.R. Shukla (C?)
Murali Kartik
Ishant Sharma
Ajantha Mendis
Ashok Dinda

X-factor / player to look out for

Ajantha Mendis. Watching this genius bowl was one of the highlights of 2008 for me, and in a format where wickets really count, Mendis could be a real factor for KKR. It is true that the Indians handled him better in January than they did last summer; but many of the batsmen he will bowl to would not have faced him before, and I think he will enjoy considerable success in the tournament. It will certainly be good for the game if spinners like Mendis and Powar thrive, as I expect them to.

Conclusions / predictions

I actually think Kolkata is in a better position than last year, because they can draw more extensively on Gayle (who missed the tournament entirely last year), McCullum (who could only play the first couple of games) and Mendis (who was part of the outfit, but for some reason didn’t get a game). But they failed to gel as a team last year, and by all indications they will fail even more spectacularly to do so this year. Their “main” captain, Ganguly, is probably someone who wouldn’t be entirely sure of his own place in the XI had he not been such an icon. They don’t have a quality all-rounder, and their seam attack is led by one person (Ishant) who was a huge disappointment last year, and who perhaps hasn’t entirely adjusted to the T20 format; and another (Dinda) who has been in poor form of late in domestic cricket. Their bowling success depends hugely on how much Mendis can deliver, but I think their batting is stronger than it was last year. Still, I don’t see them making the semis.

BANGALORE ROYAL CHALLENGERS

General thoughts

Bangalore was the Horror of 2008. Deccan was the worse team, but Bangalore’s misery was more public and more ridiculous. I didn’t think very highly of Vijay Mallya’s decision to replace Dravid with Pietersen as captain, but nonetheless I think Bangalore is better positioned this year than last. Some of that has to do with the fact that they have so many South Africans in their ranks, and so probably have more “home advantage” than any other team. But even more, it has to do with their acquisition of Jesse Ryder, who I think will prove a far more valuable player than KP (who will only play for the first two weeks anyway). I think Bangalore, more than Kolkata, is likely to be the dangerous floater of the tournament.

Strengths

Ryder. The India series in New Zealand was the first time I got to see him, and I have to say I am so impressed. What is most impressive is that his technique is impeccable – he plays absolutely straight, and has so much time to play his shots. One of Bangalore’s major weaknesses last year was their opening batting, and Ryder and Robin Uthappa (whom they have acquired from Mumbai) look a far better bet than anything they managed to put together last time. Another major weakness was fielding, as Bangalore had the worst fielding unit in the league; Ryder’s electric fielding abilities will boost that department too. Add his useful medium-pace, and he is in the running for being Watson-of-the-year.

I think Bangalore will also see an improved Dale Steyn. Steyn was a disaster last year, as he clearly thought he was getting a very well-paid holiday and put in no effort. I think he will be a different proposition in South African conditions, and I don’t think he’ll be allowed to get away with such a slipshod attitude by the new coach Ray Jennings.

Weaknesses

Two of Bangalore’s key middle-order batsmen, KP and Dravid, will leave after two weeks (the latter for the birth of his child). KP could be well replaced in the 11 by Ross Taylor, but I think the gap left by Dravid’s departure will be hard to fill. (In the very public and constant tirade that Mallya kept up against Dravid last year, it is easy to forget that, while officially “out of form” and “unsuited to the format”, Dravid was Bangalore’s top run-getter by some distance). They will also have a captaincy gap. Jacques Kallis will take over from KP; but Kallis is no more obviously suited to this format than Sourav Ganguly, and has very little captaincy experience. So even if they get off to a good start, sustaining it without Dravid and KP will take some work. Their bowling is also weaker than last year, since they have traded Zaheer Khan to Mumbai. A better performance from Steyn could make up somewhat for the deficit, but someone else needs to bowl Zak’s 4 overs, and it’s not clear that gap can be easily filled.

Their best team

The top 4 select themselves, and Kallis’s all-round abilities should see him take the no. 5 spot even though he was so disappointing last year. Virat Kohli will take the last middle order spot. If Ryder, KP, Kallis and Steyn play as the foreigners, there will be no place for Mark Boucher. While Sreevats Goswami would be the obvious keeper in his absence, I would actually ask Uthappa to don the gloves so that Bangalore can play the extra bowler – their bowling is weak enough to require that. Steyn and Praveen Kumar will take the new ball, while Kumble is the spinner. Their back-up seam attack will be constituted by Pankaj Singh, who was acquired from Rajasthan; and UP’s young all-rounder Bhuvneshwar Kumar, about who see more below.

Likely XI:

Jesse Ryder
Robin Uthappa (W)
Rahul Dravid
Kevin Pietersen ©
Jacques Kallis
Virat Kohli
Bhuvneshwar Kumar
Anil Kumble
Praveen Kumar
Dale Steyn
Pankaj Singh

X-factor / player to look out for

Bhuvneshwar Kumar. He, Umesh Yadav and Ravindra Jadeja are the three young Indians to pay attention to in this tournament. BK is only 18, but had a terrific season as an all-rounder for UP, getting crucial wickets at first-change and playing key, hard-hitting innings down the order. Acquiring him was a smart move, and the IPL will be a great learning experience for him. He could be someone to look out for in Indian colors in years to come.

Conclusions / predictions

I still think reaching the semi-finals will be a tall order for Bangalore, especially once KP and Dravid depart. But I think they will take some steps in the right direction this year, which is more than can be said for Kolkata. Especially in the early stages of the tournament, they could cause some upsets, so opposing teams will do well not to take them too lightly.

DECCAN CHARGERS

General thoughts

Last, and least, the Deccan Chargers. Last year, they were the favorites going into the tournament, and turned out to be woeful. In the interim, they have replaced V.V.S. Laxman with Adam Gilchrist as captain, even though Gilchrist captained half the games last year and had exactly the same record as Laxman; have replaced Robin Singh as coach with Darren Lehmann, though Lehmann has few coaching credentials; and appointed and possibly sacked their CEO, except nobody was sure whether he was actually sacked or not at the time of sacking. Also in the interim, Gilchrist has played no first class cricket; Andrew Symonds has spectacularly imploded; and Herschelle Gibbs continues to classify as wasted talent. They did a terrible job at the auction, failing to pick up any really significant new signings; and haven’t even done much of a job of drafting in fresh young Indian talent, as some of the other franchises have done. How will they do any better than last year? I don’t know, you tell me.

Strengths

I am hard pressed to find any, though this represents a terrific opportunity for Rohit Sharma. He was one of the silver linings last year, and I think there will be enormous responsibility on him to salvage something for his team this year. This might be the challenge that he needs to turn his enormous talent into something more consistently productive, and if that happens, then at least some good will come of Deccan’s debacle for Indian cricket.

Weaknesses

Where to start? The entire time looks like a weakness to me. Fidel Edwards could be an exciting new signing with the ball, but he can be expensive, and is only available for two weeks. Otherwise, the bowling attack is led by R.P. Singh, who has struggled with rhythm and fitness for the past year, so that is as big a gamble as having an attack led by Irfan Pathan. The batting, I think, revolves entirely around Rohit.

Their best team

Gilchrist, Gibbs, Symonds and Edwards are the best foreign players, since their other options are all Sri Lankans who don’t quite cut it – Chamara Silva (notorious underperformer), Nuwan Zoysa (ditto) and Chaminda Vaas (past his best, though will probably come in when Edwards leaves). None of those three are good enough to make it into the Sri Lankan one-day team at present. Laxman has to play – there aren’t too many other options, and I thought he did a pretty good job before his injury last year – but I would have the talented Ravi Teja open with Gilchrist. Venugopal Rao, who was surprisingly spunky and effective last year, is the other batsman, while Pragyan Ojha and Hyderabad’s talented fast bowler Shoaib Ahmed complete the bowling attack.

Likely XI:

Adam Gilchrist © (W)
Ravi Teja
V.V.S. Laxman
Herschelle Gibbs
Andrew Symonds
Rohit Sharma
Y. Venugopal Rao
Pragyan Ojha
R.P. Singh
Fidel Edwards
Shoaib Ahmed

X-factor / player to watch out for

Rohit Sharma, because not only will his performance determine whether Deccan can avoid the wooden spoon; it will also determine his chances of making the playing XI for the T20 World Cup, and his immediate future prospects with the Indian one-day team. So there is a lot riding on this tournament for him. And Rohit finding his feet can only be good news for Indian cricket.

Conclusions / predictions

The only item of interest here will be the gripping contest for the wooden spoon between Deccan and Punjab (with Kolkata capable of sneaking a surprise in that department). I think Deccan is better qualified to finish last, because at least Punjab tasted success last year, so they will have some self-belief. This team has just not gelled together at any level, and I don’t see it happening now.

STICKING MY NECK OUT

So, sticking my neck out, these are my predictions:

Champions: Delhi Daredevils
Runners-up: Rajasthan Royals
Semi-finalists: Chennai Super Kings; Mumbai Indians
5th: Bangalore Royal Challengers
6th: Kolkata Knight Riders
7th: King’s XI Punjab
8th: Deccan Chargers

Player of the tournament: Daniel Vettori
Most runs: Gautam Gambhir [other possibility: Virendra Sehwag]
Most wickets: Makhaya Ntini [other possibilities: Daniel Vettori; Shane Warne]

New Zealand series post-mortem

2009-04-07T00:42:00.001-07:00

I’m not quite sure how I feel at the end of the New Zealand series. On the one hand, our first series victory in New Zealand in 40 years is something to savor. On the other hand, 2-0 would have been a more accurate reflection of the difference in quality between the two teams. We could and should have beaten England 2-0, both at Mohali and at the Oval, so these are three series where the fight was truly won, but the knock-out punch not delivered. A part of me will take that – who would have thought, even a couple of years ago, that this is what we would be quibbling about? But the greedy part of me wishes for a bit more.

There are a lot of positives to take out of the series, in both the batting and the bowling departments.

The batting line-up now has a formidable look to it, and Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman all came good, while Dhoni is looking better and better as a Test batsman. Gambhir, as I have already blogged, was simply phenomenal, the player of the series without a doubt. Laxman carried on the rich vein of form that he has now shown for well over a year, and it looks, finally, like he doesn’t have a selector’s axe hanging over his head. Dravid looks like he’s back and running – a 100 in the series would have been nice, but even without it, The Wall is back and looking as solid as ever.

But in some ways, the biggest joy of the series for me was watching Tendulkar bat. This is because, not only is he making runs, but he is making runs like the Tendulkar of old, perhaps even better. This is Sachin Mark III. Mark I was the Sachin of the 1990s, sheer, exuberant, unadulterated genius (albeit often genius in losing causes, or without adequate support). Mark II, from 2001-2004, still saw a lot of runs, but a more dour, defensive outlook. A lot of the strokes from the 90s were gone, and the injuries, especially the dodgy tennis elbow, were creeping in and clearly restricting his game. After a disastrous phase from 2005-07 (which coincided, as it did for so many people in this team, with the Greg Chappell years), Sachin Mark III seems to be combining the best of I and II. Glorious shots that had been put in cold storage for years, especially the pull and the flowing drives in the V, are back. But there is also a cold, calculated, almost premeditated precision about his batting now. In the 90s, it was often as if Sachin was batting by instinct. Now, it seems like he is batting at will. He decides the tempo of his innings, decides how he wants to pace it, decides which areas he will pick and focus on, decides which bowlers to target in which fashion, and then just goes about doing it. I still feel that the long-term development of India’s one-day side would be helped if he sat out a few more games to let Rohit Sharma establish himself; but in Tests, there is no question that Sachin has no parallel, even if someone like Gambhir has outweighed him in sheer number of runs this series. Over the years, it has been easy to take Sachin for granted. But now, in the twilight of his career, every innings of his is worth savoring.

The disappointment was Sehwag, and the worry is Yuvraj. Sehwag’s blip was uncharacteristic, and it is hard to put it down to bad form when he was in such sublime touch in the one-dayers. But he failed in the Tests against England as well, so that is two series in a row where he has been falling cheaply while all the while looking in fine nick. (This is unlike in 2006-07, when he looked in no sort of form at all). Hopefully, the Viru of the big hundreds will be back soon.

Yuvi is a bigger problem, because at the end of the series it is not clear whether he has what it takes to cut it in the big leagues. I would personally give him another series – I think it is important to give someone the assurance of ten games before discarding them, and the England series was the first time Yuvi was in the team for the long haul, as opposed to being a stop-gap replacement for Ganguly. So from my perspective, Yuvi still deserves another 3 or 4 games before a more definitive verdict is passed on him.

But the problem is, it is hard for me to predict whether he has the ability for Tests, simply because he has played such little four-day cricket in his career. Pretty much from the get-go, he has been a fixture in India’s one-day side, and a constant hanger-on on the sidelines in Tests. So he has toured a lot with the Indian Test side, without getting a continuous run in the side, but also therefore without playing much domestic four-day cricket. In that sense, I think there is a real detriment to getting people into the Test side through the route of one-day cricket. There is a lot of glamour and celebrity status to be had by playing one-dayers, but I really think one’s game is better honed in the humdrum existence of Ranji Trophy cricket. Someone like Gambhir, who might seem at first sight to have taken the same route, in fact piled up tons upon tons of runs in four-day domestic cricket; not to mention runs on all manner of India A tours, including in Sri Lanka, England and South Africa. Yuvi might have lots of international experience, but he just doesn’t have that kind of four-day experience. And it shows.

This is relevant as we start thinking about the generational change of guard in our batting order. Hopefully, that is not something we need to be thinking about immediately, as I hope that Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman will carry on for another couple of years. (Laxman, after all, is only 34, which is still relatively young; and I think Sachin has a burning desire to play one more World Cup. Dravid will likely be the first of the three to retire, but he seems to be enjoying his game at the moment, so hopefully that moment is at least 12-18 months away). But it is something that is worth speculating upon.

At this point, the next generation of batsmen is to be found in two flavors. One mirrors the Yuvraj model, which are those who have become household names by being part of the one-day fold. Rohit Sharma and Suresh Raina are the two key names here, though Virat Kohli is also someone who conceivably has an international future ahead of him. Of these, I definitely think that Rohit is Test caliber; indeed, I would go so far as to say that purely in terms of natural ability, he is third only to Sachin and Sehwag amongst Indian batsmen today. But all three of them would benefit from more time in the domestic game, because the temperament to consistently play big innings isn’t yet evident. The worst thing that could happen to them is what happened to Yuvraj – for them to shuttle around the world carrying drinks for the next three years, and only getting 50-50 and T20 cricket into their systems. It would be much better if, when they are not playing shorter version cricket for India, they hone their four-day skills for their state teams.

The second mirrors the Gambhir model, which are those who have scored tons of runs in domestic cricket, and are knocking on doors through sheer dint of performance. The four people in this category are – Subramaniam Badrinath, Murali Vijay, Wasim Jaffer (yes, I still think he has an international future) and Cheteshwar Pujara. Badri has to be first in line here, and surely he would have been far more successful than Yuvraj at 6 in New Zealand conditions; Jaffer has come off one of the most sensational years in first-class cricket in the history of the Indian domestic game, scoring nearly 1500 runs; and Vijay doesn’t quite have those kind of stats, but looked so impressive in the chance he got at Nagpur (and is a brilliant close fielder, which I think is an area where we need drastic improvement). Vijay and Jaffer, of course, are openers, but either could bat at 3; or one could imagine them partnering Gambhir at the top, and having Viru drop down to 4 once Sachin retires.

Pujara is the least known of the four, but I think is a future star if he is given the proper breaks. He is technically extremely sound (and potentially an ideal replacement for Dravid as a long-term no. 3), and has made tons of runs for Saurashtra both this year and last – and hence has the sort of 4-day experience that more glamorous or well-known batsmen like Rohit or Raina don’t. It is very possible that Raina and Rohit will get a lot of media time with some good performances in the IPL, which will then ease them into the Test side because everyone will be talking about them; while someone like Pujara may not even get a game, or may struggle with the format if he does. But in terms of the long-term, I think Pujara is one of the safest bets we have. Hence, while I wish to savor Dravid, Sachin and Laxman for as long as possible, a long-term batting line-up worth nurturing (through A tours and the like) would be Jaffer / Vijay, Gambhir, Pujara, Sehwag, Badrinath, Rohit (or Yuvraj / Raina), and Dhoni. Yuvraj, in this dispensation, looks distinctly iffy. So – give him a fair run, and if he doesn’t cut it, move on. The worst possible scenario would be to keep Yuvi at 6 for the next 2 years, find that he isn’t good enough, and then have a mass exodus of the seniors as well. That will mean building a middle-order from scratch.

The bowling looks equally formidable, even though Ishant Sharma struggled in the final Test with the wind. But bowling in these conditions would have surely been a learning experience for him, and he is bound to be the better bowler for it.

The real joy though was Zaheer. Zak’s bowling now is like Sachin’s batting – he is supremely a master of his art. I won’t put him in the same league as Wasim Akram, because Akram is unparalleled (the greatest bowler I have ever seen, along with Shane Warne). But he is close, and even if the likes of Dale Steyn and Mitchell Johnson may be getting more wickets, I would suggest that purely on skill, Zak is the best fast bowler in world cricket today. His intelligence, control and versatility are simply amazing. He can bowl conventional swing, and get it to move in both directions, hitting perfect lines and lengths. He bowls a deceptively heavy short ball, and the yorker that was such a part of his armory when he first came on the scene before it dropped out is reappearing. He can bowl a bouncer off a long run-up at 125 kph and have the batsman fending because it is onto him so quickly; and he can bowl a searing out-swinger at 140 kph off a short, ten-step run. He can bowl round the wicket, playing simply on the angles if the ball is new, or getting reverse swing if the ball is old. He has become adept at controlling a cricket ball, and more importantly, unlike the Zak of old, adept at controlling his own temperament. That is the sort of maturation that we have not yet seen in Yuvraj, even though they have been playing international cricket for exactly the same amount of time.

If Zak was the joy, then Harbhajan was the surprise and revelation. I have on these pages been unstinting in my criticism of Bhajji over the past few months; but he certainly convinced me in New Zealand. The way he used the wind in Wellington to get drift was just magical. What was crucial was that he was flighting the ball, and flight is something that has been virtually absent from his bowling for the past few years. For much of the past few years, he has predominantly been a flat, defensive bowler, looking to push the ball through and hoping to pick up wickets simply by bowling lots of overs. When he tosses the ball up, he looks a completely different proposition. Of course, there were troughs as well – in Napier, when the batsmen got on top of him, he looked distinctly mediocre, suggesting again that when he doesn’t get an early wicket he retreats into a defensive shell and can be easily handled. But generally, leading the spin attack after Kumble’s retirement seems to have brought out the best in him. And let’s not forget his spunky batting at no. 8 – five crucial half-centuries at critical junctures in the past year is probably more than what Yuvraj is capable of at this point.

For me, Munaf Patel is still an iffy proposition. He did the job at Hamilton, but he remains the biggest question mark in the 11. Purely on talent, I think we need a fit Sreesanth. I would take a gamble on his temperament because his ability to swing the ball both ways at pace would nicely complement Zak’s left-arm swing, and Ishant’s ability to hit the deck, and that would really make us a versatile bowling attack with four strike bowlers. Sreesanth is someone who needs to be taken care of when he is out with injury, and we cannot afford talent like his to go waste.

While the batting and bowling look good, the real disappointment for me was the fielding. Far too many catches were dropped, both at Napier and in Wellington. Indeed, there is no point blaming the draw in the final Test on the delayed declaration, because if he had taken our catches we would have won regardless. Dravid and Laxman remain good slippers, but we don’t have a third, and Yuvraj is woeful in that position; so when those two retire, we won’t just have batting holes to fill, but catching holes. And Gambhir shows quick reflexes occasionally, but is a far from stellar short leg. With the changing of the guard in a few years, youngsters will bring in quick legs - but can they catch?

Indeed, it is because of our fielding that I would say that we cannot lay claim to the world no. 1 spot ahead of South Africa and Australia. We are close – batting, bowling, temperament, self-confidence are all there, and man for man, when lined up against the batting or bowling line-ups of either of those two sides, we can hold our own. But can we really match a fielding line-up that has Smith, Prince, Kallis, Amla, Duminy and de Villiers? Not even close, and there’s 40 runs an innings difference there, before you start counting the dropped catches.

Meanwhile, spare a thought for New Zealand. Their bowling just isn’t good enough to bowl out top teams, though their batting is halfway decent. Certainly Jesse Ryder is a real talent, not just because of his stroke-making ability, but because of his utterly tight defense. I can’t wait to see more of him in the IPL. Ross Taylor also got better and better as the series progressed, and I think Martin Guptill has talent (if somewhat suspect technique against the short ball). The real problem there is inexperience – New Zealand plays such little Test cricket against top sides. The ICC’s Future Test Program is supposedly designed to ensure against that, but like everything else the ICC does, it is a hopeless flop. So, New Zealand will only play their next Test on Boxing Day. How can a team improve its Test performances if it plays Test cricket less often than Yuvraj Singh? At this rate, with Pakistan virtually out for the count, Zimbabwe a shambles, Bangladesh still a third-rate team, and the West Indies bankrupt, one will see the development of a two-tier system in Test cricket, with terrific competition between the 4 or 5 top teams and then a huge drop in standard to the next 4 or 5. And that is bad news for the long term growth and health of the game.

Napier Test thoughts

2009-03-30T19:43:00.000-07:00

I apologize for being off the blog for so long. I have been traveling and busy. There is a lot that I want to write about, including the win at Hamilton and the horrific attack on the Sri Lankans in Lahore. But in order to stay up-to-date, let me just write my thoughts on the Napier Test.

My predominant feeling is one of relief that we got out of jail. Though of course, we were the ones who got ourselves into jail in the first place. The second innings batting performance was resolute. The first innings performance was simply inept. We got to see the Jekyll and Hyde of Indian batting in this game.

But really, cricket was the loser in this game, and that was because of the pitch. I don’t know why batting pitches are called “good” pitches, because a pitch like this goes against the very essence of cricket, which is supposed to be a contest between bat and ball. The problem is, this isn’t a one-off problem. There has been brilliant cricket between Australia and South Africa; but alongside that, a travesty of a game in Karachi (which no doubt would have carried on throughout the Pakistan-Sri Lanka series had it not been so rudely interrupted); and, except for one session of brilliance from Jerome Taylor, one of the most boring series imaginable between England and the West Indies. All because of third-rate pitches that offered nothing to bowlers. It is almost as if the game’s administrators are purposefully trying to kill off Test cricket – and perhaps they are. If pitches like this continue to be prepared, they will succeed. The only thing that made this game interesting was India’s own poor batting in the first innings. Otherwise, as Daniel Vettori said, you could play another five-day Test on it and it still wouldn’t yield a result.

I am particularly surprised that pitches like this are being prepared in New Zealand. Surely one would prepare pitches that suit your home team’s strengths, especially if you are playing a far superior team against whom your only advantage is playing at home? I think even the Indians would in some respects have enjoyed playing on seaming wickets more. If they are aspiring to be the top team in world cricket, then they would want to test themselves in a whole range of conditions. What is the point of turning up in New Zealand and playing on a pitch that’s not much different from what you would find for a Ranji Trophy game in Rajkot? Hopefully the Basin Reserve will throw up a more seam-friendly track. It is certainly New Zealand’s only chance of leveling the series, and it will make for better and more absorbing cricket, regardless of one’s allegiance.

In terms of the game itself, I think there were three pluses are four minuses.

The first plus, undoubtedly, was Gautam Gambhir. The pitch might have been flat, but his second innings effort was still colossal. Given the match situation; given Gambhir’s own relative inexperience in Test matches outside the sub-continent; given Gambhir’s natural game and how he had to curb it; and given the way he had gotten out in the first innings, this was a knock of the highest order.

How Gambhir has come along in the past 18 months! He was always a talent, and always a bully in domestic cricket. But first he made a name for himself as an impact player in T20. Then he developed himself into one of the most consistent batsmen in the 50-over game. Then he started playing useful Test knocks. Then he started converting those pretty 60s and 70s into 100s. And now he has shown what the best Test batsmen have to show, which is adaptability to the needs of the situation. Gambhir would have learnt a lot about Test cricket, and about himself, from this knock, and that is good news for Indian cricket.

The second plus was Jesse Ryder. What a delightful cricketer he is! His talent was in evidence when he burst onto the one-day scene a couple of years ago. But what has really impressed through this series has been his maturity. Again, good batting track; but again, like Gambhir, not an easy situation. He walked in at 23 for 3, with Zaheer and Ishant on fire, and Ross Taylor looking like a cat on a hot tin roof at the other end. And he batted flawlessly for his 200, looking impregnable in defense but taking advantage of every scoring opportunity that presented itself. Add to that his brilliant fielding and his useful dibbly-dobs with the ball, and you really have one exciting package. He presents exciting possibilities for Bangalore in the IPL, and indeed, might be more likely to turn their fortunes around than Kevin Pietersen. Given how little Bangalore paid for him, he could well turn out to be the most value-for-money player in this year’s league.

The thing that is so uplifting about Gambhir’s and Ryder’s success is how they have both overcome their own volatile temperaments to reach where they have. Both players have in the past had a tendency to hurt themselves with their feistiness; neither has the natural calm of a Dravid or a Vettori. That both of them have played such exemplary cricket for their respective sides is really something that one can only celebrate and feel happy about.

The third plus was Dravid. His performance certainly wasn’t in the league of Gambhir’s or Ryder’s, but it is good to see the confidence back. Last year, even on the rare occasions when Dravid made runs, he looked scratchy and miserable, and I have to admit that I wasn’t sure if the old form and confidence would ever come back or if it was time for him to retire. So it is good to see him prove the old adage that form is temporary, but class permanent. An assured Dravid at 3 makes such a difference to the overall feel of the Indian batting line-up. Laxman of course outplayed him; but Laxman’s was merely a continuation of form from last year. Dravid has clearly had to fight a lot of demons these past few months, and it looks like he might have won the battle.

All four minuses have to do with Indian performances. This isn’t to say that New Zealand doesn’t have minuses – their top order, for instance, is woeful. It is just that I don’t care about their minuses as I do about ours, so that is what I will focus on.

For me, four people disappointed in this game – Sehwag, Yuvraj, Karthik and Munaf. So let us consider each of them one by one.

Viru disappointed as both batsman and captain. His dismissals in both innings were unconscionable, and his leadership on the field was insipid. But I have to say that I’m not too worried about him. Sure, I hope he never repeats shots like that again. But he was just playing his natural game. Sure, it would be nice if he could have tailored his game to the needs of the situation. But we know he can do so, and indeed he did so majestically at Galle against Murali and Mendis just this past summer. As Sambit Bal wrote on cricinfo, I think his problem was that he just didn’t rate the New Zealand spinners highly enough; and cricket is a great leveler when you go in with that kind of arrogance. Hopefully he would have learnt something from this outing.

What perplexed me was how disappointing his captaincy was, given that on the one previous occasion when he captained India in a Test (Ahmedabad against Sri Lanka in 2005), he was quite brilliant. I have always admired Viru’s cricketing brain, and thought that he was also very good when in charge of the Delhi Daredevils in the IPL last year. But in this game, he just let things drift for large parts of the New Zealand innings; he seemed completely unwilling or unable to motivate the players in the field; and his field placements ranged from the extremely defensive (sweeper cover throughout the innings for just about everyone) to simply bizarre (the staggered slip cordon, which was bisected on more than one occasion by genuine edges). I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, given that he had to don the captain’s blazer on such short notice; but I have to say I was unpleasantly surprised. It is clear from this just how much this team feeds off Dhoni’s inspirational leadership.

Yuvraj might have redeemed himself somewhat with his second innings 50, but I still have worries about him. That knock came at the fag-end of a game, flat track, with the game virtually saved, and the New Zealanders knackered. For the rest of the game, however, Yuvraj was a disaster, with the bat and in the field, and the questions about his Test match abilities persist.

There are two problems with Yuvraj as a Test batsman. The first is technique, and the second temperament. That makes for a pretty comprehensive set of problems.

Certainly, Yuvi has talent. And on a flat track, he can make bowlers pay. But on tracks with a bit of nip in them, even run-of-the-mill swing bowlers would fancy their chances against him. The way he batted in the first innings reminded me of 1980s and 90s horror stories of Indian batsmen when they stepped abroad – Yuvi’s knock would have done Arun Lal or Vikram Rathore proud in terms of the utter lack of ability around off-stump. And of course, there is still the vulnerability against quality spin bowling. So if he doesn’t have the technique to play pace, and doesn’t have the technique to play spin, this presents a slight problem.

What makes up for it is that he is a confidence player, and when on song sheer confidence and ability sees him through. But the inverse also operates – when not on song, he goes to pieces in most dramatic fashion. We saw that when he sleepwalked through the tour of Australia last year – where again, it wasn’t just that he batted poorly, he also fielded like a zombie. And much of this game was the same. Good Test players are those who can battle through even when they are not on top of their game; and indeed, someone like Gambhir looked anything but fluent at the start of his second innings, but just stuck in there. I don’t think Yuvraj has the capacity, or the mental strength, to battle through tough situations like that, when he is not already in the zone.

He has probably done enough to retain his place in the side for the final Test; and indeed, he did play a couple of crucial knocks against England. And the fact that he is such a brilliant one-day player means that he will always remain in the picture for Test selection. It is probably also fair to give him a proper run, however defined, at the no. 6 spot, given that it is only after Ganguly’s retirement that this spot for him has had any look of permanence to it.

But on the other hand, if one looks dispassionately and in the long term, is Yuvi ever going to be an all-condition Test batsman? Is he really as good, technically, as either Badrinath or Rohit Sharma, who are both being kept out of the Test side on his account, and who have not been given half the chances he has? Is he really even as good as Dinesh Karthik, who has shown his ability to succeed as a batsman – in Tests, as an opener, in England – given that Yuvraj has not really succeeded in any position in Tests outside the sub-continent? Sure, he should be given a fair run – but of all the people in contention for that no. 6 spot, is he the most deserving of that fair run?

Karthik of course had a miserable game here, in front of and behind the stumps, to follow the two miserable games he had in Sri Lanka. But I am more sympathetic to him than I am to Yuvi.

First of all, I think he is in an unenviable position, because as long as he is picked in the side as second keeper, he is destined to carry the drinks unless Dhoni is injured. This means he is always in a no-win situation when he does play, and usually (as in this Test), he gets to play at short notice. Don’t get me wrong, I think DK is a pretty ordinary keeper – certainly Dhoni is a far better keeper than he is. But there aren’t that many good keepers doing the rounds in India (Parthiv Patel, in my mind, is far worse behind the stumps than DK is). Bengal’s Wriddhiman Saha might be someone to consider down the road. But the fact is, as long as the second keeper is being selected as Dhoni’s understudy, he has to be someone who can bat at no. 7 in Dhoni’s absence. And regardless of keeping skills, DK fits that bill better than anyone else.

Because the fact is, DK can bat, and he can bat well, and with spunk. He can stonewall if he needs to, and he can improvise and get quick runs if he needs to. And he has shown that, not just in domestic cricket (where he has come off a sensational year), but in international cricket. Let us not forget, that as makeshift opener, he was India’s top run-scorer in the 2007 Test series in England. Even regular openers often don’t manage that. Top run-scorer. In England. This is a non-trivial achievement. Do you think Yuvraj will ever be top-scorer in a series in England, at no. 6, let alone as opener? I don’t.

In other words, I think DK has to stay in the mix, because I think there is real talent there, and real temperament. But his place in the side has to be understood not as reserve keeper, but as reserve batsman. He is one of the best batsmen in Indian cricket today; he is every bit as deserving of a spot, as a batsman, as other aspirants like Badri and Rohit and, indeed, Yuvraj; and he has to be allowed to think of himself as someone who is legitimately in the running for that no. 6 spot. If he is taken along simply as Dhoni’s understudy, then he will be constantly put into these desperate, no-win positions that we have seen him in over the last few months. If it is made clear to him that he and Yuvraj are fighting for a middle-order spot, with his keeping abilities being a bonus, then I think that will give him enormous self-confidence, while keeping Yuvi on his toes. Certainly, if you asked me my honest opinion of who the better long-term Test batting prospect is of the two, then I would pick DK ahead of Yuvi – simply because he has proved, in spite of never having as much security as Yuvi, that he can do the job at the highest level in foreign conditions. Yuvi has not proved that yet.

But if there is a case for keeping Yuvi in the 11 for Wellington, then I see none for retaining Munaf Patel, the fourth failure of the game. That third seamer’s spot is the one that is still up for grabs. In Hamilton, Munaf did a good job, and suggested he might be the answer, at least for the time being. But in Napier, he was miserable.

This suggests two things, and I think both are true in Munaf’s case. The first is that he is an on-again, off-again cricketer. When he is good, he can be very good, but it is impossible to tell which side of the bed he will get out of on any given day. In that sense, while Yuvraj may or may not be the perfect successor to Ganguly, Munaf is most certainly the perfect successor to Ajit Agarkar (except that, unlike Agarkar, Munaf can neither bat nor field). The second is that he is good when conditions suit him, and terrible when they don’t. This pitch was a graveyard for fast bowlers, true – but all the other seamers on view on both sides, even someone with as limited talent as James Franklin, kept trying. To me, it seemed like Munaf just threw in the towel. A third seamer needs to be someone who can hold his own in all conditions; he may never win a game for the team, but he should never be a liability. I think, Munaf, too often in his short career, and especially in Tests, has proven to be a liability. I therefore would definitely replace him with Balaji for Wellington. Balaji can be a real threat if conditions favor him, but he can also bowl tightly and give it a 100% if we are presented with another belter.

So I think the two worries for India continue to be the no. 6 batsman and the third seamer. But I still think that it is a tall order for New Zealand to level the series, because, unless a real green-top is prepared, I just don’t see them as having the bowling attack to pick 20 wickets. Indeed, it could be argued that NZ has the weakest bowling attack of the eight major Test teams. (South Africa’s pace trio is scary good; India and Sri Lanka have genuine variety and versatility; Australia is looking good again now that Johnson and Siddle are hitting their straps; Pakistan, if and when they ever get to play, have two quality seamers in Gul and Tanvir; England has Flintoff, who is still one of the best fast bowlers in world cricket, and others who on their day turn up for work and look briefly threatening; and the West Indies have the genuine pace of Fidel Edwards. Vettori is a good bowler, but far better suited for the one-day game, and certainly no Shane Warne). This is why it is such a travesty that the second best bowler they have ever produced, Shane Bond, is fit as a fiddle, but cannot play because of the stupid and patently unjust ban on account of ICL participation. Bond in the side would have provided a real test of Indian mettle; and again, in his absence, it is cricket that is the loser, and administrative malice and pettiness that is the cause. Why, I wonder, did NZC tow BCCI’s line on this one?

Onward, then, to Wellington. Let us hope it turns out to be a cricket match, and not just net practice for the batsmen.

India team for NZ ODIs, plus first thoughts on IPL09

2009-02-11T10:07:00.000-08:00

So if there is one thing that this meaningless ODI series in Sri Lanka has taught us, it is the redundancy of Sachin Tendulkar in the shorter format of the game. One certainly feels for Sachin – he did, after all, get three horrendous decisions before being “rested” for the rest of the series. But the point is, we did just fine even with his failures. But his presence in the side for the first half of the series meant that we missed a chance to give Rohit Sharma a proper run, or to build our bench strength by taking along the likes of the hapless Badrinath.

So, as I sit down to pick my team to New Zealand for the ODIs there, the first name I strike off the list is Sachin’s. And this is for the same reasons I mentioned in my previous post: unless one is certain that he is integral to our World Cup 2011 plans, and will be at his best then at age 38, playing him now in inconsequential games just blocks up the pipeline, and prevents the important development of other young talent. A proper series in New Zealand will give Rohit a wealth of valuable experience – they are a more than useful one-day side (possibly as good or better than Sri Lanka), and these will be new conditions for him. Why not give him a proper run of five games there?

The rest of the batting order pretty much selects itself. Gambhir showed how devastating he can be at the top of the order once Sachin was rested, and that is where he should be batting. Yuvraj’s form has been phenomenal, and he has now won two man of the series awards in a row. It is hard to recognize in him now the forlorn figure in Australia at this time a year ago. So he should be getting as many overs as possible to bat. Raina continues to impress in his second coming, and looks very comfortable now in the one-day middle order, with his electric fielding adding immense value to the side. Dhoni remains the fulcrum of the side, both as batsman and captain. And young Yusuf Pathan has played some thumping knocks down the order, all the while developing his nagging off-spin. Playing in New Zealand conditions will be valuable new experience for him also, and at this point he completely looks the part as an India player to me. The only person with something really to prove amongst the batsmen is Rohit, and I really feel he deserves a proper run now to prove it.

The bowling is a little trickier, but not much. Zaheer and Ishant are certainties, while Praveen Kumar showed in Sri Lanka just how stupid it was to leave him out of the one-day scheme of things even briefly. All three of them will enjoy conditions in New Zealand, and PK’s wicket-to-wicket swing, I think, will be particularly useful there.

Pragyan Ojha was also a revelation in Sri Lanka, making me eat my many uncharitable words about him. However, I’m not sure that playing two spinners really makes sense in New Zealand, especially since all our part timers are spinners as well. Hence, I would play Irfan Pathan ahead of Ojha in the 11. It is true that Irfan has looked a bit iffy in Sri Lanka, but I still back his natural talent. His swing bowling can be very effective in New Zealand, and his lower order batting skills will be useful to fall back on against a team whose bowling is its strong suit. Irfan’s critics are ready to come out at the drop of a hat, but let us remember that just a year ago, he was Man of the Match in our Test win at Perth, and followed that up by leading Punjab’s attack most effectively in the IPL. I am convinced there is a quality cricketer waiting to make his mark there. In any case, his likely replacement would be Munaf Patel, who hardly has the temperament of a Glenn McGrath, whose batting skills are woeful in comparison to Irfan’s, and who will be coming off injury. So why not give Irfan a proper chance, instead of just playing him in the odd dead rubber here or there?

This only leaves the question of the bench. I think, in Sachin’s absence, that Badri has to be brought into the picture, and there are enough posts in these pages to suggest why I think he is so good. Raina and Rohit are ahead of him in the ODI stakes in the moment, but in Rohit’s case at least, just about. He needs to be part of the picture. I would also, without hesitation, retain Ravindra Jadeja. He has looked the part as a lower-order batsman ever since the IPL, and his half-century on debut in Sri Lanka was a most impressive affair. But Shane Warne didn’t use him as a bowler, and in the interim he has been one of the most successful bowlers in the Ranji Trophy this year. There is real all-round potential here. One of India’s glaring weaknesses of late has been the absence of quality all-rounders, which really hurts the balance of the side in one-day games. But now, we have Irfan, Yusuf and Jadeja all in the running – none of them finished products, but all capable of playing a role in 2011. To me, that is a very exciting development.

For the reserve fast bowler, I will bring back Munaf Patel, who should be fit. Munaf’s one outing in Sri Lanka was disappointing, and I for one am delighted that Laxmipaty Balaji is back in the fray, since he is one of my favorite cricketers. But Balaji’s own performance was nothing to write home about in the one chance he got (his figures of 5-0-32-0 were identical to Munaf’s in the first ODI). And more importantly, Balaji has for some reason never thrived in one-dayers. This is odd, given that he is basically a line and length bowler. But while he has always looked threatening and taken wickets in 4- and 5-day games, he has tended to be expensive and ineffective in one-dayers. When it comes to selecting the side for Tests, I would without hesitation put Balaji ahead of Munaf; just as I would likely put R.P. Singh in ahead of Irfan. But for the one-dayers, I would look at Munaf’s strong performances over the past six months and retain him.

I would give the last spot to Pragyan Ojha. I would do so even if Harbhajan is fit. Bhajji has probably done enough in terms of sheer weight of wickets to be India’s number 1 Test spinner. But I still don’t think that he has necessarily been more impressive, or looked more threatening, than other spinners who are fighting for a place in the side, like Mishra or Piyush Chawla or more recently Ojha. Ojha will learn and develop as a bowler by getting a chance in New Zealand, where conditions won’t help him as much as in Sri Lanka. He will also be helped by watching and playing against Daniel Vettori, definitely the best left-arm spinner in the game today. I’d bring Bhaj back in for the Tests, but given the glimpses of his ability that he’s shown in Sri Lanka, Ojha deserves a little more rope.

That means that my team is:

Gautam Gambhir
Virendra Sehwag (V)
Yuvraj Singh
Suresh Raina
Mahendra Dhoni © (W)
Rohit Sharma
Yusuf Pathan
Irfan Pathan
Praveen Kumar
Zaheer Khan
Ishant Sharma

Reserves:

Subramaniam Badrinath
Ravindra Jadeja
Munaf Patel
Pragyan Ojha

This means a top 5 that packs a real bunch; and a bottom 3 who will be a real threat against New Zealand’s fragile top order. Numbers 6, 7 and 8 are still works in progress – but if they are given proper encouragement, and start fulfilling their potential, then we really have a crackerjack core of a team for the next World Cup, because there is enormous talent in Rohit, Yusuf and Irfan (and their back-ups, Badri, Jadeja and Munaf).

A little IPL parenthesis. The auction has thrown up some interesting choices. Bangalore has expectedly made the big play by signing on Pietersen, but to me it is Chennai, Delhi and Mumbai that really look formidable. Chennai’s first-string foreign players include Hayden, Hussey, Flintoff, Albie Morkel, Ntini and Murali; given last year’s performances, Murali’s place might be the most vulnerable of this lot. That is really saying something, and that’s even without looking at a virtual India middle-order of Raina, Dhoni and Badri. Morkel might be the least known of the lot, but he is a real impact player in this format, and one of the few South Africans who came good last year. The South Africans will also be available for the duration of the tournament, so Morkel has a good chance of being this year’s Shane Watson.

Delhi’s middle order was weak last time, but I think it will be stronger this time. They have given up the consistent Shikhar Dhawan, but have the talented Australian David Warner. A top 3 of Gambhir, Sehwag and Warner is scary good, and for the no. 4 spot, they can choose between three extremely talented players in A.B. de Villiers, Tillakaratne Dilshan and Owais Shah. De Villiers disappointed last year, but there is such talent there, and even when he’s not making runs he’s worth 20 in the field even over 20 overs. This is backed up by the miserly duo of Glenn McGrath and Daniel Vettori, the latter, this time, available for the duration of the tournament. So you have some of the hardest hitters in the tournament, and a couple of the hardest bowlers to hit. The all-round skills of Fervez Maharoof and Rajat Bhatia don’t match up to those of Morkel and Flintoff; but in terms of specialists, Delhi is as good or better than anyone in the mix. And they have two quality spinners in Vettori and Mishra, which (if Murali doesn’t play) is two more than Chennai. Spinners played a huge role last year, and I think that teams with versatile spin attacks will have an advantage.

Mumbai, meanwhile, look very balanced, and J.P. Duminy in the middle order makes for a very good team at 4, 5 and 6 (Duminy, Bravo and Nayar). There is Sachin and Sanath at the top, and the no. 3 spot will be fought between the talented youngsters Dhawan and Ajinkya Rahane. Dhawan was outstanding for Delhi last year, but has had a quiet domestic season since. Rahane didn’t get much of a chance last year, but has been colossal for Mumbai, and should be at the periphery of the national selectors’ vision. Zaheer’s signing from Bangalore will help their bowling, and he will be partnered by either Lasith Malinga or Jerome Taylor, both potential match-winners, and supported by Dhawal Kulkarni, who after a sensational debut year in the Ranji Trophy must surely be knocking at doors.

Rajasthan will certainly be without the services of their two heroes Watson and Sohail Tanvir, and probably without the services of the third, Graeme Smith. This is a team with enormous self-belief, but those three will be hard to replace. Morne Morkel for Tanvir is probably the safest switch; Tyron Henderson will have big shoes to fill as he takes over Watson’s role; but somehow, I can’t see Justin Langer having the same impact as Smith at the top of the order. Had I been bidding, I would personally have gone after Brad Haddin here – Mahesh Rawat was the one weak spot in the Rajasthan side, looking ordinary behind the stumps and doing nothing whatsoever with the bat. Haddin would have provided a fine wicket-keeping option, while providing a more aggressive opening option than Langer will. Given the strength of their opposition, a repeat performance for the Royals seems unlikely, but who can put anything past Warne?

I certainly see Mumbai as semi-finalists this time, and the team that seems most in danger is Punjab. They have talent, but too much of it is fragile. Three of their star players, Sangakkara, Jayawardene, and Lee, have been going through patches ranging from the mediocre to the horrible; other key players such as Sreesanth and Irfan are, well, hardly predictable. And it is going to take a lot for Shaun Marsh to match the extremely high bar he set himself last year. There may be far fewer Preity Zinta hugs on offer this time round.

The dangerous floaters for me are Kolkata. They spent a ridiculous amount of money to make one acquisition, Mortaza, who may not even make their starting XI. But they have Brendon McCullum for the duration; Chris Gayle, who missed the last edition, for the first half; and the genius of Ajantha Mendis, who wasn’t unveiled at all the last time. Between Mendis, Gayle and Murali Kartik, they have the most versatile and varied spin attack in the competition. And their middle order could be much more stable this time round if Cheteshwar Pujara is given a proper run.

That leaves Deccan and Bangalore. Deccan turned in a bizarrely poor show at the auction. Given how weak they were last year, I really thought they would attempt to rectify the situation with some clever choices. Their seam attack is particularly weak, led as it is by R.P. Singh, whose inconsistency over the past year hardly inspires confidence. Considering that, I am surprised that Fidel Edwards has been selected as their acquisition. He can get wickets, but what Deccan really needs is someone they can rely on. Considering this, it boggles my mind that Stuart Clark was passed up. He was one of the three bowlers of the tournament in the T20 World Cup (along with R.P. and Umar Gul), and a team like Deccan, more than any other, could really have done with his services. He also has an excellent rapport with Gilchrist, which makes his non-inclusion even more baffling. So Deccan now depends on a captain who is retired from competitive cricket; Edwards, who is inconsistent; and the erratic and troubled genius of Andrew Symonds. Looks like what they can most legitimately aspire to is to avoid the wooden spoon again. If I were them, I would have at least gone for Bangladesh’s Shakib al Hasan – a foreign quartet of Gilchrist, Symonds, Hasan and Clark would have looked far better than anything Deccan will be able to put on the field this year. I would at least sign on the talented young UP all-rounder Bhuvaneshwar Kumar, who was most impressive with bat and ball in the Ranji Trophy this year, and who is someone who could have an impact in this format.

But even Deccan’s idiocy pales compared to Bangalore’s. Sure, the KP signing will give them some strength, and a lot of attention. But they had a depleted bowling attack last year, and giving Zak away is hardly going to help that. Nathan Bracken, if fit, might make up for that. (I would also consider drafting in Vidharba’s young Umesh Yadav. He is quick – very quick – and had Dravid in all sorts of trouble in the Duleep Trophy. He will enjoy bowling at the Chinnaswamy, which is amongst the more pace-friendly of the IPL venues, and will be far more threatening than the likes of Vinay Kumar or B. Akhil). But there is no spin worth its name, especially if Kumble decides against playing this year.

What I cannot stomach, however, is the public speculation about Dravid’s continuation as captain. True, Dravid isn’t a great captain, and certainly didn’t inspire his charges last year. And if KP was available for the duration of the tournament, it would be intriguing to hand over the reins to him and see what happens. But for three weeks? And then to be replaced by Mark Boucher? Boucher was one of the colossal flops for Bangalore last year. Dravid, on the other hand (as people like to forget), made nearly 400 runs in that tournament, making him virtually the only Bangalore player to have performed with any level of credibility.

What is really specious is the argument given by Vijay Mallya. Apparently, since Shane Warne was spurned as Australia captain, he came in to lead Rajasthan with a point to prove – hence, Mallya’s thinking (if what passes through that brain can be called thought) is that KP, spurned by England, will come to Bangalore bristling with leadership points to prove.

What this conveniently misses out is that Warne only took over the team on the condition that he had total control over it from the beginning. He wasn’t just a spurned captain – he was also coach, manager, confidant, in charge of appointing his own assistants and with a group of young enthusiastic charges under his care. It was also his only assignment – he wasn’t thinking of an impending Ashes assignment six weeks away. And he didn’t have as astronomical price tag that he had to justify every time he took the field. KP, on the other hand, will have to negotiate Ray Jennings as coach, who is such a hard-ass that even the South Africans rebelled against him and he had to be replaced by Mickey Arthur. And will have to negotiate the publicly idiotic blather of Mallya, who will expect instant results and show no patience with anything resembling process. Far from having a group of enthusiastic young charges that he gets to mold from the beginning, he will be confronted by a team of big egos who have gotten into the losing habit, trying to accept someone who is coming in from the outside to put in a three week cameo experience as leader. He will have the Ashes on his mind, and will probably be dealing with media speculation about whether he is worth his price, whether his true commitments are to England or to his IPL contract, and so on. And KP’s results while captaining England have been distinctly mediocre.

The point here is not whether KP is a better captain or Dravid. The point here is that good teams are built, and there are processes put in place. The idea that you can pull a captain out of a hat and he will magically transform the team’s fortunes, while all the while you are speculating on strategies and successes and failures in the media, goes against not just cricketing sense, but against any sense of successful organization or institution building. The pick-a-captain-and-hope-until-his-first-failure approach is what has gotten Pakistan cricket into the mess it is in. The public media speculation is what made Greg Chappell such a disastrous coach for his players, who could no longer continue to trust him. Mallya beautifully combines both these failed formulae. Indeed, the three most impressive teams in the first edition – Rajasthan, Chennai and Delhi – were three teams whose owners and management let their cricketers make the headlines.

There may be odd individual performances that helps Bangalore avoid the wooden spoon, or perhaps even lift them up from 7th to 6th. But in the long term, something can only come of this franchise when Mallya tires of it and sells it to someone who is actually interested in developing a cricket team rather than playing with his latest toy.

When that happens, I have an idea. The Pakistanis should appoint Mallya to head the PCB. The current administrators of Pakistan cricket have worked diligently over the past decade to turn their team from a bunch of world-beaters to a bunch of also-rans. But even the Ijaz Butts of the world will meet their match in Mallya. By the time he’s done with them, Pakistan will be cannon-fodder for Bangladesh.

So, my extremely premature IPL predictions:

Winners: Chennai or Delhi
Finals: Chennai v. Delhi
Semi-finalists: Mumbai and Rajasthan / Kolkata
5th: Kolkata / Rajasthan
6th: Punjab
Wooden spoon: Deccan / Bangalore

Player of the series: Albie Morkel
Batsman of the series: Gautam Gambhir / Virendra Sehwag / David Warner
Bowler of the series: Daniel Vettori / Ajantha Mendis

And a p.s: 51!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 51!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How sweet is that?!?!?!

Indian team for SL ODIs

2009-01-17T13:57:00.001-08:00

So, the BCCI just couldn’t resist slipping in a meaningless ODI series to disrupt a well-earned rest for the Indian cricket team. In a similar vein, therefore, I cannot resist sending out my team for it.

Basically, this one-day team is a reflection of the shape that I think the team needs to take this year, as we approach the half-way point towards the next World Cup. Much of the team looks settled, and all the tinkering has tended to be with the bench strength and around the edges. But now it’s time to start settling upon combinations that can work for us over the next two years, instead of continuing to tinker.

For me, that involves one major decision to start with, and that is going to be controversial. And that is to drop Tendulkar from the one-day side. Don’t get me wrong – I still think he is a great player, and would like to think that he has a couple of years of Test cricket left in him. But that is precisely why I think his one-day appearances need to be curtailed. However well he is playing, it is clear now that the body is weaker than the mind is, and Sachin has now had a relatively major injury crop up every year or two for the past few. I would much rather have Sachin fit to play a full Test schedule than throw him in for meaningless ODI series and risk further injury or wear-and-tear.

I think Sachin himself sees that – hence his decision to opt out of the early part of the England one-day series, for instance. And this brings me to the reason why leaving Sachin out of the ODI team is good not just for him, but for the team.

At this point, Sachin is more or less playing his own selector, picking and choosing which games to play and which not to. That’s fine as an acknowledgment to one of the game’s all-time greats, but not really good for the team. At this point, a Test middle order without Sachin would have a big hole in it, and it’s not entirely clear who will fill it. But a one-day line-up without Sachin doesn’t seem to miss him at all. Whether against England or in the earlier games in the summer that Sachin missed through injury, his absence really wasn’t felt at all, because the personnel already exist to make a quality top 6 even in his absence. Gambhir and Sehwag form as effective an opening partnership as Sachin and Sehwag did in their prime; Yuvraj and Dhoni are two of the most dangerous middle / lower-middle order batsmen in the one-day game; and Raina and Rohit, not Sachin, are the ones who are likely to be reaching the peak of their game come 2011. When Sachin plays, therefore, he has to be accommodated, regardless of how well he is playing. Gambhir has to drop down to 3 – where he is comfortable enough, but it’s still an odd thing to have to shuffle the player who has been your most reliable batsman to accommodate someone else’s position. And most importantly, someone else has to get the axe – someone else who is likely to be better served being properly groomed for the long-term rather than worrying about his place in the 11.

That someone, at this point, is Rohit Sharma. Rohit has played the odd sparkling knock in his ODI career so far; but over the past year, Raina has most certainly outplayed him. Yet, there is no doubting Rohit’s talent, not just as a one-day player, but also as a future Test player. Hence, this is the time to be really encouraging Rohit. If Sachin plays, then Rohit either gets dropped down the order to 6 or 7 to play as a finisher; or he is dropped from the 11 altogether, as happened towards the end of the England ODI series. The end of that series, when India was well on top, was the ideal time to give Rohit a chance higher up the order with less pressure. Instead, Sachin felt he wanted to play, and Rohit had to sit out.

For me, one of the agendas of the year has to be to take care of Rohit, and give him the opportunity to blossom. That means not just playing him, but giving him a fixed position in the line-up – at this point, he has been moved everywhere from 3 to 7. And I think that position needs to be at 3. Everyone knows Rohit can play lovely little cameos down the order. But he is too good a batsman to be left to just that role. For him to become a serious Test contender, he needs to get into the habit of making big 100s. Allowing him to play at 3, and giving him time as well as the challenge of negotiating that pivotal role, is the best way to do it. He may fail a few times, but I think he needs to be told that the spot is his, and that he will be given the opportunity to fail.

Sachin, in a sense, achieved whatever he needed to in his one-day career by guiding India to the VB Series win last year. At this point, he is simply indulging his desire to get a game in whenever he feels like it. He may feel like he has more one-day cricket left in him – but so did Ganguly, who was in fact batting with great consistency when he was dropped from the one-day side. I thought the selectors were being harsh with Ganguly at the time, but that move in fact allowed Gambhir to consolidate his place in the scheme of things, which, from a team perspective, was enormously beneficial – especially since Gambhir carried on the confidence he developed in the shorter form into his Test performances. At this point, some selectorial courage is required to make a similar decision with Sachin, so that Rohit gets the chance to shine.

My second controversial decision would be to bench Zaheer Khan. Unlike Sachin, I see Zak playing a central role in the 2011 World Cup. But he is now 30, and I do think his workload needs to be carefully managed. I would much rather have Zak fully fit for our Test engagements this year, where he is irreplaceable, than have him play ODIs all over the place. This is especially since we do have a pool of young fast bowlers coming through the ranks, and so this would provide some space to give them a chance as well. Ravi Shastri mentioned that physiologically, a fast bowler needs to be bowling as much as possible until he is 22, because that is when bowling more actually helps him develop the right muscles, and prevents injuries down the road. So with someone like Ishant Sharma, one is actually better off over-bowling him than under-bowling him. 22-26 then is the optimum age for a fast bowler’s fitness. After 26, too much bowling can actually be counter-productive, so that is when managing workload becomes extremely important. Hence, at this point, I would play Ishant whenever fit, but hold Zak back for the big ones.

So, with that as prelude, some of the elements of the Indian team to Sri Lanka start fitting into place. The top 6 is pretty straightforward: Gambhir and Sehwag to open, Rohit and Raina given a chance to prove themselves at 3 and 4; Yuvraj and Dhoni at 5 and 6. Subramaniam Badrinath is an obvious reserve batsman. For the second reserve batsman, however, I would drop Virat Kohli and go back to Robin Uthappa.

I do think Kohli has some potential, but to be honest, from what I have seen of him, he still seems very raw and has a long way to go as a batsman, even technically. Uthappa may not have made a great fist of things so far – but he is someone we have invested in for 2+ years now, and I think the key in cases like this is to try and realize that investment. After being dropped, Uthappa has gone back and made runs in domestic cricket, and was in fact the top scorer in the Challenger Trophy, which is meant, after all, to serve as a selection trial for the one-day squad. He certainly has talent, strokes, and an innate self-confidence, and is someone who in my opinion is worth nurturing.

There are a couple of things that I like about Uthappa as a one-day player. The first is that he is an ideal man to play the role that has been thrust upon Rohit, as a floater in the line-up. Uthappa is probably most effective as a finisher, but he can bat anywhere from 1 to 7, and has turned in useful performances at pretty much all these spots. This makes him an ideal person to be on the bench, since he can effectively cover for any of the batsmen in case of injury. The second thing that makes him attractive is his wicket-keeping abilities. He’s not a frontline keeper by any means; but he could provide the opportunity for Dhoni to rest, at least from his keeping roles. With Dhoni now captaining in all three forms of the game, I think that it is essential for him to have the option of not having to keep in every game. Neither DK nor Parthiv, on present form, warrant a place in the one-day 15. Hence, it’s worthwhile grooming Uthappa not just as a back-up batsman, but also as a back-up one-day keeper. His overall utility value to the team, therefore, makes him an obvious selection in my mind.

The no. 7 spot needs to go to an all-rounder, and I think the only two who are clearly good enough to play for India are the Pathan brothers. Yusuf is more of a batsman who can bowl a bit; but I think that if he works on his bowling, then he could be someone who could be relied upon as a support spinner. Certainly, he deserves a proper run as a batsman, especially in favorable conditions. Meanwhile, there is no question in my mind that in one-days, Irfan is a better bet than R.P. Singh simply because of his batting abilities. R.P. might be the better bowler, and certainly I would pick him ahead of Irfan for Tests. But R.P.’s own form over the past year has been ordinary at best, and on this form, I see no justification for him getting into the side ahead of Irfan, his friendship with Dhoni notwithstanding. In any case, we really need to decide what to do with Irfan. He has continued to blow hot and blow cold, but the talent there is immense. And there is a genuine all-rounder there. A Test spot might still be a question mark (though I would certainly keep him in the reckoning), but from my perspective having him be a part of the one-day scheme of things is a no-brainer.

If we are to have a real chance of winning the World Cup in 2011, we do need a genuine all-rounder at 7 – 7 batsmen and 4 bowlers isn’t going to cut it. At this point, I just don’t see too many all-rounders in the country beyond the Pathan brothers who are international class. I think that the third person to bring into the reckoning is young Ravindra Jadeja, who impressed greatly as a batsman in the IPL before turning out as the season’s highest wicket-taker in domestic cricket with his left-arm spin. But at the moment, Yusuf needs to be given a proper run before others are brought in and tried out. Jadeja could well have a future as an India player, but I wouldn’t select him just yet. In Sri Lanka, Yusuf would probably warrant a spot ahead of Irfan in the 11. But in New Zealand, conditions could well suit Irfan’s bowling and make him a very dangerous customer.

In terms of bowling, Harbhajan Singh as primary spinner is obvious, certainly in one-dayers. So too is Ishant, and in the absence of Zaheer, Munaf. For my third seamer, I would pick Praveen Kumar. In all the dust up about whether Irfan should be picked or R.P., I was amazed that PK was quietly dropped out of consideration towards the end of last year. In my opinion, he is one of the best ODI bowlers in the country today. He is tidy, consistent, keeps it on a line and length, swings it both ways, and is constantly aggressive and at the batsmen all the time. He has done well whenever he has been given the chance, and has already won a few games for India in his short career. His fitness has been remarkable – he has bowled many overs for UP over the past few years, without ever breaking down. For me, his dropping by the Srikkanth committee after they took over was one of the scandals of the year; but because PK is not a celebrity figure, it hardly got any play. In New Zealand, I think his wicket-to-wicket swing can be devastating. But even in Sri Lanka, I think a bowler like him who is constantly at the batsman can be very effective. The Lankans like to go after bowlers, and PK is not an easy bowler to go after. Regardless of conditions, he is a certainty in my book, not just in the 15 but in the 11.

That only leaves the reserve spinner to choose, and here in my mind is the second instance of poor treatment in recent times. From my perspective, there is no question that this spot should go to Piyush Chawla. The talent there is immense, as is the temperament, and whenever he has been given a chance, he has risen to the occasion – whether it was in England last year (after which he was promptly dropped), or against Australia in the VB series, or in the IPL (after which he was promptly ignored). His lower-order batting abilities mean that he would not only be a viable replacement for Bhajji, but also a viable substitute for PK if conditions favor a second spinner. How and why Pragyan Ojha can be preferred to him remains an utter mystery to me. From my perspective, Ojha’s was the most undeserving selection of 2008. I thought that this was Venkatapathy Raju’s nepotism towards a fellow Hyderabadi, so am perplexed that he has been kept in the picture by the Srikkanth committee as well. PC looks to me like a real long-term prospect, as someone who can push Amit Mishra for a Test spot as well. He should absolutely be part of the team as far as I am concerned.

Hence, my team for Sri Lanka:

Playing XI:

Gautam Gambhir
Virendra Sehwag (V)
Rohit Sharma
Suresh Raina
Yuvraj Singh
Mahendra Dhoni © (W)
Yusuf Pathan
Harbhajan Singh
Praveen Kumar
Ishant Sharma
Munaf Patel

Reserves:

Subramaniam Badrinath
Robin Uthappa
Irfan Pathan
Piyush Chawla

What a win!

2008-12-18T16:48:00.001-08:00

It is just a few hours before the commencement of the Mohali Test, and I am still recovering from the excitement of Chennai. It was just one of those perfect Test matches, a true celebration of cricket at its best. In the past, such perfect Test matches have usually ended up with India narrowly losing – think Bangalore 1987, or Chennai a decade ago, both against Pakistan.

There isn’t too much to say about India’s performance except gasp in admiration. As Satish pointed out in a recent comment, we are now starting to play like Australia. I know there are still skeptics amongst the populace – people who think we are not good enough, or consistent enough, to be considered a great team.

This may be true in part – we are not yet a great team like the Aussies have been this past decade. But that kind of greatness gets established over years, not months, and comes very rarely in any sport. The quality that Australia has shown has only really been witnessed twice before in the more than a century-year old history of cricket – first, by Bradman’s Australians, and then by Clive Lloyd’s West Indians. It is good to aspire to that kind of greatness, but no indictment if we fail to achieve it. Certainly, this Indian team is beginning to look as good as some of the very good teams of the past three decades – Australia under the Chappells in the 1970s; Pakistan under Imran Khan in the 1980s.

There is one thing that encourages me most about the way this team is playing now. And that is the way we fought back from the brink of defeat in Chennai. When people think of the Aussies at their peak, the tendency is to think of an all-conquering unit. But in fact, the Aussies have stuttered often this past decade, especially with their top-order batting. Their strength has been their ability to bounce back consistently from perilous situations, either due to terrific lower-order batting (Steve Waugh; Gilchrist; Symonds) or the ability of their bowlers to take a slew of wickets quickly (Shane Warne most often, but even Mitch Johnson against South Africa yesterday). India has consistently failed on that count, but this Indian side seems made of sterner stuff. The run chase in Chennai was remarkable; but this stomach for a fight was seen as early as Lord’s last year, when Dhoni hung on for a draw that eventually helped us win the series. And it was seen again in Bangalore against Australia, when the lower-order batting of Bhajji and Zak not only pulled off an unlikely draw, but set the stage for our subsequent dominance in the series.

There are those who will trot out the fact that beating Australia was not such a big deal, because they aren’t the team that they were. They may not be the team that they were, but they are still a terrific team – just ask South Africa, who has within two days surrendered positions of strength twice to already be under the cosh against the same Aussie team that has a 0-3 record against us over the past 6 Tests. And there are those who will go on about our “poor” record overseas – this is, at this point, just an empirical falsity, since India’s record overseas over the past decade is second only to Australia’s. Certainly, we were undone by Ajantha Mendis’s genius in Sri Lanka this summer; but I am fairly confident that we won’t be the last team to be similarly undone. This is a very good team playing some inspired cricket; and the Chennai win is really something to rejoice in.

Of course, much is being made of Viru and Sachin, and rightly so. But for me, there were three other little moments in the game that were absolutely central in shaping the outcome. The first was the brace of boundaries that Yuvraj played against Graeme Swann as soon as he came in. At 224 for 4, Yuvi walked in to a high pressure situation. Another wicket, and England would have been well on top. Yuvi was playing quite possibly for his Test match future. Even in one-dayers, he is a shaky starter. Even when set, he is shaky against off-spin. Swann was bowling beautifully, getting drift, turn and unpredictable bounce. Yet, in the second or third over he played Swann, Yuvi played what to me was the shot of the match – going on the back foot and playing with a horizontal bat, as if playing the square cut; but placing the ball perfectly between extra cover and mid-off. There was little flourish to the shot, it was almost like a back-foot defensive block; but the timing was so good that it raced to the fence. He followed that up with a trademark Yuvraj slog-sweep over square leg for another boundary.

Those two shots were amazing, but the crucial moment came in the following over, when Pietersen immediately removed Swann and replaced him with Monty. And at that point, in my mind, the tide of the game had turned irrevocably. At the best of times, Yuvi prefers playing left-arm spin to off-spin. In this game, Swann was bowling far better than Monty. But most of all, it sent a strong signal – that at the first sign of aggression, even from someone as vulnerable as Yuvraj going into this innings, KP was going to do what the batsmen wanted him to do. It was an indication of the defensive mindset that ultimately cost England the game. Much criticism has been directed at Monty for his defensive bowling; but in fact, KP’s captaincy was no less defensive. It wasn’t just the bizarre placement of a deep point after lunch on Day 5, a position that had no earthly use whatsoever; it was also the removal of Swann. Had Swann been persisted with, there is no question that Yuvi would have tried targeting him some more, and perhaps another quick 20 or 30 would have been conceded. But I’m willing to bet that, the way Swann was bowling, he would quite likely have picked up Yuvi’s wicket as well. It was all very well for Flintoff to jibber and jabber at Yuvraj and try and psyche him out with chatter. But when it came to actions, England had already conceded that they were afraid of Yuvi, and at that point, the mind games had definitively been won by India.

The second and third key moments came on the 4th afternoon. Much has been made of India’s batting heroics, but the fast bowlers again delivered when it mattered most, and that post-lunch session, when England added just 57 runs in spite of being in a position of such strength, really cost them. The first thing that made that possible was Flintoff’s early dismissal. Strauss and Collingwood had provided the perfect platform. But that platform needed to be taken advantage of, and what England really needed on Strauss’s dismissal was a quick 30 or 40 to take the game out of India’s reach and set up a strong declaration. Matt Prior has looked good with the bat, but it was really Flintoff who has the ability to play that kind of game-defining innings. Yet in the space of four deliveries, Ishant Sharma had Flintoff on his way. That little spell won’t be remembered as much as Ishant’s tormenting of Ricky Ponting through the year; but that is only because Ponting survived long enough to be tormented. In fact, that over to Flintoff was about as perfect an over as Ishant has bowled all year – a couple of perfect short balls to set things up, then the perfectly pitched good length outswinger in the corridor of uncertainty that Flintoff just had to play at. Over and over again this year, Ishant has produced the perfect little spell at just the right stage of the game to get the key wickets, and this was another instance of that. A look at statistics and figures will tell us that Harbhajan Singh is India’s highest wicket-taker for the year. But while Bhajji has wheedled meaninglessly for many overs, it is Ishant who has taken wickets that matter when they matter. He has truly done for us what great strike bowlers do for their teams. Even half an hour of Flintoff at the crease, and we could have been looking at a very different ball game.

The third key moment was Zaheer Khan’s bowling to the tail. Wickets of Swann and Harmison don’t count as much as those of a Flintoff; but given how often tails have thwarted India in the past, it is good to see the way Zak bowls at the death. Most notable, of course, is the stunning reverse swing, which was in evidence against Australia as well, and which is every bit as prodigious, and accurate, as Wasim Akram’s was in his prime. It was well remarked that the Indians got reverse swing while Australia didn’t. What is more surprising to me is the amount of reverse swing India is getting compared to England. The Brits are apparently amongst the masters of contemporary reverse swing, and indeed the likes of Flintoff used reverse swing to devastating effect to win the Ashes in 2005. Yet there wasn’t a whimper of reverse swing from any of the England bowlers, not even Flintoff, throughout the Chennai Test.

At the end of the day, as ambassadors and sportsmen, England can hold their heads high. England is normally a team I love to hate; but they played with character, and even, for brief moments, with flair. They certainly gave us a much tougher ride than Australia did. But at the end of the day, they seemed as afraid of winning as India used to do in the 1990s, and consistently failed to press on from positions of strength. And ironically it was KP, who talks a tough talk, who was often hesitant to really turn the heat on as captain when he could have. This means that for a team that has a lot of talent and depth, England’s last significant performance still remains the 2005 Ashes – there is remarkably little to show since then.

India, on the other hand, seems in a zone. They may yet lose in Mohali - in the past, highs like this have been followed by arrogance and complacency – but there is clearly enormous self-belief, and enormous belief amongst team members in each other. What is really exciting for me about the Chennai win, though, is that it has combined two very different styles of winning that India has employed in the past. The one, most common through the early 2000s, was the Miracle Win, where the unbelievable heroics of one or two men would create victories that would be etched in the memory forever. Kolkata 2001 is the classic example here, but there were other less remarkable ones scripted through the 90s on the backs of a Tendulkar or Azharuddin or Kumble special, or in the 1980s because of Kapil Dev’s single-handed heroics. The problem with such victories was that they were rarely replicable – they made India one of the most dangerous teams in the game on their day, a team to always fear; but 9 times out of 10, one would be left hoping for a miraculous performance and instead be given a mediocre one.

Over the past couple of years, however, the Miracle Wins have been replaced by the Team Effort. The three wins against Australia this year were all comprehensive, but none of them was marked by a single stand-out performance. In some ways, that bodes better for the long-term future of the team; but it is not the stuff of dreams that the Indian cricket fan thrives on. Indeed, the aftermath of the recent win against Australia was almost a certain anti-climax – as in great show, chaps, but what do we tell the grandchildren? Chennai, however, had it all. Viru, Sachin and Yuvraj played out of their skins, and the first two at least played knocks the likes of which they might never be able to repeat; but at the same time, every single person other than Dravid made some significant contribution that went towards this win. It is that combination of individual brilliance and solid teamwork that makes this win so special for me.

Worries after Day 3

2008-12-13T14:24:00.001-08:00

Well, cricket really is a glorious game, isn’t it? After dominating Australia over 6 Tests, and England over 5 ODIs, it seemed obvious that India is the second best, and possibly the best, team in world cricket today. It took only two sessions of sustained bowling from England to remind us that this is not necessarily the case. It has been a bizarre year for India – the dominance over Australia has been thorough, but we struggled against South Africa, and were outclassed by Sri Lanka. So against the other three teams – South Africa, England and Sri Lanka – that we are vying for the no. 2 spot with, it is not clear that we are clearly better.

Part of this, I think, comes from the fact that Australia does bring out the best in us. While other teams get overwhelmed while playing the Aussies, we have now reached a stage where we really seem to believe that our best performances are likely to come against them. But part of it also comes from the fact that, in comparison to South Africa, Sri Lanka or England, Australia’s bowling attack is mediocre. South Africa has the most menacing seam attack in world cricket today, with three fast bowlers of different styles who can all bowl in the high 140s. Sri Lanka has the dual genius of Mendis and Murali, and once Lasith Malinga becomes fully fit, they will have a genuine fast bowler to open up the top order for the spin duo. And England has serious depth and variety in their bowling. Harmison and Anderson are temperamental, but the formers’ ability to hit the deck and bounce it complements the latter’s ability to swing the ball at pace. Flintoff remains a phenomenon – his ability to keep it tight, build pressure, yet consistently bowl wicket-taking balls is virtually unparalleled, and had it not been for injuries, he would clearly be the best fast bowler in world cricket today. The fact that Monty, who’s a pretty useful bowler, looked the most pedestrian of England’s bowlers on view is an indication of just how well their seamers bowled. When you think of those who are in the wings – the tireless left-arm swing of Ryan Sidebottom; the enormous talent of Stuart Broad; and possibly, just possibly, the brutally quick reverse-swing of Simon Jones – then you see a breadth and depth of fast bowling that Australia just doesn’t possess. India struggles against bowlers who bowl straight and make them play. Australia’s most successful bowler in the recent series, Mitchell Johnson, bowled nearly 3/4th of his deliveries wide of off-stump. The Aussies have one class act in Brett Lee. When he went off the boil, as he did in India, there was really no one else who could build pressure. Our challenge against England in the days to come is going to be much more acute. I still think England’s batting is far weaker than Australia’s; but our batsmen are not going to have easy pickings in this series.

Coming to this game specifically – it really does look a lost cause. India’s 4th innings performances have gotten better in recent times. But England will remember Mumbai in 2006, and they certainly have the bowlers to exploit a 5th day pitch with unpredictable bounce. India is actually is one of those terrible situations with little room to maneuver. Another 100 runs from England and a win will be impossible. But ironically, if England collapse on the 4th morning and leave India with a more gettable target in the vicinity of 300, I think that’s going to be in some ways even more difficult. It will take a draw out of the equation; but it will also start casting questions about the nature of the pitch in the minds of the Indian batsmen. India’s best hope almost lies in playing a containing game, and having England bat till tea or a little after on the 4th day. If England is made to score at less than 3 an over, then they are always going to be wary of making a declaration; if they are not dismissed, then they will probably bat on till the target is at least 400 before they do so. If India has 4 sessions or a little less to bat, then they would fancy their chances of escaping with a draw, as they managed both at Lord’s and against Australia at Bangalore in the last 18 months. Strauss and Collingwood have shown that with a little application, there are no real devils in this wicket. India actually stands a better chance of getting out of this one if England’s batsmen manage to further confirm that impression on Day 4.

For India, there are two huge worries, and no surprises for guessing what they are. The first is Dravid, and the second is Yuvraj Singh. Dravid was the one weak spot in the Indian side in the Australia series. Even when India got a good start, the first wicket would invariably be followed by a quick second. Even when Dravid himself looked good, he found uncharacteristic ways of getting out. By the time Nagpur rolled around, Dravid was so out of it that even his normally customary hands were failing him at slip; and his batting skills seemed long forgotten on his favorite Test venue. The first innings here was no different, and the fact that Dravid didn’t have the cushion of a big partnership behind him only added to the pressure he felt.

The larger question of whether Dravid should be persisted with or dropped won’t go away unless Dravid himself answers it, either with a big innings (hopefully) or with retirement. I had personally suggested before the team was selected that the team, and Dravid, would have been better off had he been left out for this series, especially given Murali Vijay’s impressive debut at Nagpur. But in either case, the stubborn persistence with Dravid at 3 has to end. Laxman, in any case, is wonderfully suited to that position; his form is streets ahead of Dravid’s; and in the second innings situation that we find ourselves in, it is really important that our four best batsmen of the moment occupy the top 4 slots. Allowing Dravid to bat at 5 or 6 is, for the next innings or three, a nice halfway-house between deciding whether to keep him or axe him. It will hopefully take some pressure off him also; let’s remember that his monumental 180 alongside Laxman in Calcutta 2001 was made batting at 6.

Yuvraj’s case is just as tricky. All the debates about whether he is good enough to play at Test level remain after his 1st innings. Like Dravid, his problem too is partly in the mind. It seemed like there was no plan in his own head about how he would tackle this innings. His natural instinct is to attack. The problem is, unlike Sehwag, Yuvraj’s attacking technique is full of holes. Even when he is going berserk, Viru is a technically perfect batsman. He may play risky shots and take on too much, and sometimes he looks stupid doing so. But he rarely plays across the line, and except for a tendency to slash at wide deliveries outside off-stump, doesn’t have too many technical weaknesses. Yuvi’s flamboyance, however, is full of technical deficiencies. He has a big back-lift, which makes him vulnerable to the quick moving delivery; his footwork is poor, which leaves him vulnerable to the out-swinger; and his struggles against quality spin are well documented. Field restrictions and his own arrogance allow him to overcome these deficiencies in one-day games; but there is clearly still a lack of confidence and self-belief when he bats in Tests.

The way he allowed Flintoff to psyche him out is a classic example of that. All Flintoff did was to combine restrictive bowling with a bit of chatter. Viru has his own pulverize-or-perish method of dealing with restrictive bowling. But all other good Test batsmen, if they are confronted with a good bowler who is giving nothing away, are capable of reining themselves in, seeing him off, and turning their sights elsewhere. The Indians have become particularly good at this, and even naturally attacking batsmen like Gambhir, Tendulkar, Laxman and Dhoni have become really good at adapting the pace of their innings to the needs of the situation and the quality of the bowling. Yuvi, however, got rattled after just two overs of Flintoff probing outside his off-stump. That suggests an inability to tailor his batting to the ebb and flow of Test match cricket. Even his recent Test successes – the 169 against Pakistan, or the nearly run a ball 77 against Sri Lanka in Ahmedabad – were about him being in complete control of the situation. But in Test cricket, there are bound to be phases where the bowler takes control, and good Test batsmen are those who know how to ride out those situations. Gambhir, more than anyone else, has learnt this admirably over the past year. If Yuvi is to really take Ganguly’s place, he’s going to need to learn this sooner rather than later.

I think that Yuvi’s selection was probably more justified than Dravid’s. He was colossal in the one-dayers, and he is a form player, so there would have been hope that he would carry that confidence forward into the Tests. And that might still happen. But there is another way to look at this, and that is that a batsman who has over the last 8 years of his career failed to convince in the longer version of the game has been drafted in, for the fourth or fifth time, on the back of a couple of big one-day knocks on a hope and prayer that those will translate into success in Tests. On the other hand, Subramaniam Badrinath, the man who was in the wings already, has been kept waiting for longer, in spite of proven ability to play the long form of the game. So Badri’s performances in Ranji Trophy have been disregarded, and he hasn’t been given the chances that Yuvi has to prove himself through the one-day game. Yuvi, in the 1st innings, walked into a situation that was remarkably similar to that which Andrew Symonds found himself in during the Melbourne Test in late 2006. Symonds was an unquestioned star in one-day internationals, his abilities as a Test batsman were in doubt, and his temperament, like Yuvi’s, swayed between the arrogant and the self-destructive. The Aussies had lost four early wickets with less than 100 on the board. And he took England apart to play a career-defining innings, making him not just a fixture in the Australian side, but, overnight, one of the most feared batsmen in Test cricket. That Yuvi failed to take that chance means that, at the moment, the parallels to Ajay Jadeja cry out more strongly than those to Symonds.

But there is a larger team story to this, because Yuvi’s failure shows just how important Sourav Ganguly has been to us these last two years. In some ways, I think Ganguly is going to be missed more than Kumble. Kumble, for months, has looked jaded and past his best – the question around him really was when he was going to retire. And in Amit Mishra, India has found a more than adequate replacement, certainly for home Tests. But Ganguly has played some of his best cricket over the past two years, and his only failure during this time has been in Sri Lanka. It just puts in perspective how ridiculous the questions were that were raised about him, especially by Dilip Vengsarkar’s selection committee.

The difference between Yuvraj and Ganguly is not simply one of achievement. As I said, Yuvi might yet come good, perhaps even in the next couple of days. The difference was of temperament. Both Yuvraj and Ganguly are confidence cricketers who back themselves, and who have in the process managed to achieve much more in their careers than their techniques alone would have allowed them. But Yuvraj’s confidence is built on fragile foundations – he is good at taking control of situations, and backs himself when he is on a high. Ganguly, on the other hand, was best in crises – either when the team needed him most, or on the many occasions when critics had written him off. And since his comeback to the side in South Africa in 2006, that crisis-induced confidence had almost a zen-like quality to it. Dravid’s own slump in form started in that same series in South Africa. What actually happened, without our noticing it, was that Ganguly, over the past two years, has taken on Dravid’s role in the team. His technique is not that which can earn him a sobriquet like The Wall, but Sourav has, most certainly, been a rock. Even his 50s and 60s have come at crucial times, and there have of course been the great knocks – the double hundred against Pakistan, the series-leveling 80-odd against South Africa in Kanpur, the 100 against Australia in his farewell series. The Indian top order has played with confidence knowing that even if they fail, Sourav will still be walking in at 5 or 6; and this has more than compensated for Dravid’s loss of form and consistency. And like Dravid at his best, Sourav has been able to shift gears almost at will – playing with dour obduracy when the situation has demanded, and lighting into the opposition when that is what the team has needed. Quite simply, the last two years have been Ganguly’s best and Dravid’s worst – and yet it is Ganguly whose future in the game was questioned virtually every step of the way. A middle-order, in this series, of Laxman, Tendulkar and Ganguly at 3, 4 and 5 would have looked ever so good – and in that situation, it wouldn’t have mattered whether the 6th batsman was Yuvraj or Badri or Vijay or Rohit, any one of them would have had the cushion of five top batsmen and Dhoni surrounding them. I think there is no question that Vengsarkar hastened Ganguly’s exit from international cricket by at least a year, and that is the biggest blot on a selectorial tenure that was marked with hubris.

Anyway – with two days left to play, someone needs to play out of their skins to save this one for us. The signs are not good: Dravid is in miserable form; Yuvraj is still searching for the Test batsman within him; Sachin’s second innings record is poor; Viru and Laxman have career averages against England that are significantly lower than their overall averages; and Dhoni has a dodgy ankle. This means that to my mind, the key to India’s fortunes really lies with Gautam Gambhir. He needs to show the other batsmen that this wicket can be negotiated; he needs to set his stall out here for the big one. He has been one of India’s stars this year; and had it not been for his moment of stupidity in elbowing Shane Watson, he would undoubtedly have won man of the series against the Aussies. This is his chance to make up for that stupid moment, and lead the way out of Chennai unscathed to Mohali.

Meanwhile, Dhoni has a man-management decision to make. He has to do one of the following things. Either he has to tell Dravid and Yuvraj that reputations don’t matter here – it is sink or swim time, and either they perform in the second innings or lose their places to Vijay and Badri in Mohali. Or he needs to back them to the hilt, assure them that their place in the side is secure no matter what, and figure out a way to inspire them to play their natural game. In either case, Laxman needs to bat at 3. In the latter case, I would further send Yuvi in ahead of Dravid at 5, with license to play his shots and take the attack back to England. One way or another, Dravid and Yuvi need to be certain in their minds about what they plan to do in the second innings. Their only hope – and probably the team’s – lies in being uncluttered in the head, and Dhoni has to decide whether carrot or stick is more likely to induce that clearness of purpose.

Indian team for England Tests

2008-11-19T22:29:00.001-08:00

There is much to write about the India-Australia series, and its delightful ending. But right now, I want to look ahead to the Tests against England. The one-day series is so far going along on a bright note. But it is the two Test series that is of real importance and excitement as far as I am concerned.

At this point, much of the team selects itself. Gambhir and Sehwag form one of the more formidable opening combinations in world cricket. Tendulkar and Laxman form the heart of the middle order, and have quelled any immediate talk of them following Ganguly and Kumble into the sunset. Dhoni seems to have the magic touch as captain, but more importantly finally started looking the part of a Test batsman against the Aussies. And the bowling looks very settled, with Zaheer and Ishant as the spearheads. Harbhajan Singh has come back from years of mediocrity to be the highest wicket-taker in Tests this year in the world; and Amit Mishra looks ready to fill Kumble’s boots for the long haul. (Given England’s weakness against big-turning leg-spin, I am especially looking forward to see Mishra bowl to them. The battle between Mishra and Pietersen, and Mishra and Flintoff, should be particularly gripping).

So that really leaves only three considerations. The first and obvious one concerns the replacement for Ganguly. The second is more tricky and troubling, and concerns what to do with the one enduring worry that persists after Australia, which is the form of Dravid. And the third concerns bench strength, since part of the process of rebuilding should involve having some kind of a clear succession plan in place.

The Ganguly succession is actually tricky, because I think there are three candidates vying to fill his boots at no. 6. The one “in possession”, as it were, is Badrinath, since he was selected in the 15 against Australia. Anyone who has spent any time on these pages knows that I am possibly Badri’s biggest fan in the country, and for him to be leapfrogged over yet again would be heart-wrenching for him. Yet, I don’t think that his selection is as straightforward as we would like. He hasn’t had too many chances, but the few chances he did get in the one-day games in Sri Lanka were not chances that he made the most of. So in terms of overall record over the past three years, he must surely be frontrunner. But in terms of current form, there are question marks.

The second is Yuvraj. The Yuvraj-for-Tests question is one of the perennial questions in Indian cricket, and it has reared its head again in light of his brilliance in the one-day series. Yuvi’s case is diametrically opposite to Badri’s. In this case, we are dealing with someone who doesn’t have the record or consistency, but who is in blazing form. Whether Yuvi is the long-term replacement for Ganguly remains an open question – even in one-days, he has oscillated between Viv Richards-like brilliance and utter mediocrity in the span of months. But the selectors should first be asking whether Yuvi is the best man to bat at 6 against England, and there the answer, on form, seems more compelling. This is especially because Yuvi, almost more than anyone else in Indian cricket except Bhajji, is a belief cricketer. When he is on a roll, he is unstoppable, and it is often in our interests to play him when he is on a roll. Add to that the fact that England is his favorite opponent, and that the First Test will be played in Ahmedabad, where he has pleasant memories of mauling Muthiah Muralitharan, and the case becomes even stronger.

And then there is Rohit Sharma. If Yuvraj is the form horse, while Badri has shown consistency over time, then Rohit is sheer pedigree. More or less since the moment he has arrived on the scene, he has been talked of as an inevitable part of the next-generation middle order. We know that he has what it takes to cut it at the international level, which is something Badri has yet to prove; and he certainly has better technique than Yuvraj. His problem, up till now, has been an inability to build an innings. Even in one-days, his tendency has been towards pretty 50s that promise much more, and his first full Ranji season for Bombay last year was a disaster. Hence, I have been of the feeling that Rohit should be blooded in the domestic circuit for longer, so that he gets into the habit of playing 4-day cricket and actually turning those 50s into 100s.

What brings him into the reckoning for me now is that he has started doing that this season. He started it with a 100 for India A against the Aussies; and then made a scintillating 100 in a single session against Rajasthan. Rajasthan is hardly top-notch opposition. But that innings showed that he has now started developing the ability to go on and make three figure knocks; it also showed that, while technically more correct, he has the ability to be as devastating as Yuvraj when the mood possesses him. Regardless of whether he gets into the side straight away, I think his time will come sooner rather than later.

At the end of the day, the choice between these three has to boil down to gut feeling. I would give Yuvraj another chance in the playing 11 – especially now that he knows that a strong performance can make that no. 6 spot his for the long haul, he might have the confidence to really buckle down and make this chance count. But who sits on the bench, for me, is a toss-up between Rohit and Badri.

I personally would go with Rohit, and that is for the following reason. I think that, barring injury, neither of them is going to get a chance in the two-Test series – Yuvraj is deserving of at least two Tests to prove himself, so even if he comes a cropper in Ahmedabad, I would retain him in Mumbai. So, really, the selection is largely symbolic. Rohit, if selected, will get the acknowledgment that he needs that his form is being noticed. Badri, on the other hand, can use this opportunity to get some runs for Tamilnadu and some form under his belt, in order to lay claim to a spot for the Pakistan tour.

One thing is crucial in all this. One of Srikkanth’s wonderful early gestures as selector was when Rohit was dropped from the Test side for the Aussie series, after which he personally went to the lad’s hotel room and had a chat with him. The next day, Rohit made his 100 against Australia. I think the key for Badri is not whether he is selected or dropped – he knows there is stiff competition for that spot, and in many ways, it will be better for him to be in the middle making runs in Ranji than carrying the drinks for yet another Test series. Rather, the key for him is that the selectors explain to him why he has been dropped, what he needs to do, and most importantly, keep him in the picture. This is what Vengsarkar and generations of earlier selectors have failed to do; but it looks like Cheeka is made of classier stuff. Being dropped will be a disappointment; but as long as Badri is taken into confidence, it will help him retain his confidence.

If dropping Badri is hard for me, dropping Dravid is even harder. But I think we must do so. Dravid has now gone two years without contributing significantly, and an average of 30 over two years for a number 3 is a serious worry. What really worries me is I don’t think this is a loss of form – the timing still looks as good as ever. Rather, it is that famed mental strength that is deserting him, as he finds new and ever more ingenious ways of getting out. By the end of the Australia series, this was even affecting his normally infallible slip catching. I really hope that doesn’t mean the end of the road for Dravid – that he gets back to the domestic game, makes runs, and makes one final attempt at a comeback, in the manner of Ganguly. But I don’t think we can afford to let sentiment override what is best for the team, and I sadly feel that at this point Dravid and the team would benefit if he had some time out of the limelight.

This is especially because Murali Vijay looks like such a good prospect to take his place at 3. I was proved wrong in my dismissal of him, and I am quite happy to have been so. He looks like a fine prospect, with good technique and temperament. And his fielding, both close in and in the circle, made a telling difference in Nagpur. So he definitely deserves to be persisted with – another feather in the cap for Srikkanth and co.

All this leaves is the question of a back-up spinner, since I think Munaf Patel is the obvious choice for back-up seamer. I personally have still seen little in Pragyan Ojha to be impressed by him. Young Piyush Chawla is certainly one for the long haul; but I would actually go back to Murali Kartik, who is fit, has bowled well in England through the summer and started the season strongly for Railways; who has been treated badly for far too much of his career; who is good enough to give both Bhajji and Mishra a run for their money in the 11; and who I think is a far, far better left-arm spinner than Ojha.

So, my team for the Tests:

Gautam Gambhir
Virendra Sehwag (V)
Murali Vijay
Sachin Tendulkar
V.V.S. Laxman
Yuvraj Singh
Mahendra Dhoni © (W)
Harbhajan Singh
Zaheer Khan
Amit Mishra
Ishant Sharma

Rohit Sharma
Munaf Patel
Murali Kartik

It should have been Chopra

2008-11-05T12:58:00.000-08:00

It is hard to write about cricket in the wake of yesterday’s historic US election. Even the final Test of an India-Australia series seems trivial in comparison. But one’s job must be done, so here goes.

The big news going into Nagpur of course is the banning of Gautam Gambhir. I have no problems with the decision. One can complain about bias in terms of how the Aussies get away with their sledging, but that is a different issue as to whether Gambhir should be punished. Albie Sachs’ ruling against the appeal is fair.

But this is a huge blow to us, because Gambhir has been colossal. He has developed into our most dependable batsman in all forms of the game. He has ensured strong starts, which has helped most of all in blunting Brett Lee’s threat. And his ability to tailor the pace of the scoring to the situation has been very helpful. When Sehwag gets going, Gambhir reins himself in; but if Viru gets out early, then Gambhir ensures that the tempo of run scoring is maintained. Even without playing the last Test, he is the leading candidate for man of the series.

This is why I am upset that his replacement has been Murali Vijay rather than Akash Chopra. I have nothing against Vijay. He has been a consistent performer in the domestic circuit, and is in a rich vein of form at the moment. He also is reputed to have a very solid technique, so is certainly one for the long haul. And I am all for people being selected on the basis of domestic performances, rather than rushing in with the latest under-19 sensation, which is what previous selection committees have tended to do. Vijay, in spite of scoring heavily, went largely unnoticed under the Vengsarkar committee, who didn’t even deign to have him in the A team for much of the time. So I certainly wish him well. Other selections this committee has made, especially that of Amit Mishra, have proved inspired, so perhaps Vijay will surprise us all. All selection committees need to operate on some level of gut feeling, so this could yet turn out to be a selection worth applauding.

Still, it should have been Akash Chopra. It is true that Chopra cannot change gears in the effortless manner of Gambhir, though he has become a more free-flowing batsman over the past three years. But then, there is no guarantee that Vijay can either. But everything that holds true for Vijay holds true for Chopra. Chopra too has been in a rich vein of form (top-scoring in domestic cricket last year, so purely on the weight of runs ahead of Vijay), and that form has run into the early part of this year as well (consider his big 100 for Delhi against Pakistan’s SNGP XI). What Chopra brings for sure, and Vijay doesn’t, is experience in Test cricket, including against Australia. In the pressure cauldron of a final Test match, that will count for a lot. The Aussies won’t just go at Vijay with the ball and in the field, but also verbally – and that is a lot for a youngster to deal with, when two days ago he would have been planning his second innings against Maharashtra.

Chopra provides additional qualities as well. He has a close friendship and intuitive understanding with Viru, whereas Vijay is just meeting him for the first time. One of the things that makes the Sehwag - Gambhir partnership so effective is that understanding, which translates, amongst other things, into terrific running between wickets. Chopra too is excellent between wickets, and that really helps put pressure on an opposition first up. Then there is Chopra’s outstanding close fielding – in a deciding Test, one could well have imagined Chopra taking the catch that gave us the series.

One might argue that Vijay is more of a long-term prospect. But that ought to be irrelevant in a series decider against the best team in the world, with a new captain, one retiring stalwart and another recently retired one. At this point more than any other, Chopra’s experience, calm head and temperament would have counted for a lot. And in any case, I think that 31 is not too old – Chopra has at least 4 or 5 years of cricket ahead of him, and needs to be in the mix.

Again, Vijay might come good and prove me wrong, and I would welcome that. In some ways, not having too much time to think about his debut may help him. But at such a crucial juncture, I have to say that I am unimpressed by this selection, which seems based, at best, on intuition rather than logic. At worst, it seems based on nepotism. I know that Tamilnadu players have had a raw deal in the past, and being from Chennai I am not immune to hand-wringing about this. But is it really a coincidence that the minute a Tamilnadu player becomes chief selector, the first really surprising selection is that of a TN cricketer?

Vijay himself is in an unenviable position. In addition to the pressure of the occasion, he knows that if he does well, he will lose his spot to Gambhir anyway. And if he fails, then the consensus will be that it was a purely nepotistic selection. Since a Vijay failure could well cost us the Border-Gavaskar trophy, there is every chance that he will be discarded into the wilderness at that point. So basically, he is in the sort of no-win position that Chris Rogers found himself in for the Perth Test.

I am also, frankly, shocked that Vijay has pushed Badrinath out of the one-day team. Technically, Vijay is more of an accumulator than a one-day player. Also, we hardly need more openers in the one-day side – Viru, Gambhir and Kohli can all do the job, as can Sachin when he plays. And I agree that Badri has not taken the few chances he has got so far.

But really, the selectors need to take a proper decision on how they are going to handle Badri. Keeping him in the wings, and then on tenterhooks, and then dropping him without a fair chance, is extremely unfair on him. A few failures shouldn’t be held against him. Let us remember that both Ken Rutherford and Marvan Attapattu, to name but two, had miserable starts to their Test careers before going on to eventually becoming captains of their national sides. Neither of them will be remembered as a great batsman, but they were both very good ones, and certainly each of them had phases in their careers when they were amongst the most consistent and respected batsmen in world cricket. Even someone like Gautam Gambhir, now such a fixture, said that the change of fortune only happened once he felt that he had solid backing from Dhoni in the T20 and one-day side, and therefore felt like he didn’t have to constantly look over his shoulder to see is his place in the 11 was secure or not. Badri may not be an automatic selection in the one day 11 – fair enough. But he surely should be an unquestioned part of the 15. We now have a host of ODI batsmen that we have brought into the picture – including, in addition to Badri, people like Raina, Rohit, Virat Kohli, Yusuf Pathan, and those like Uthappa and Karthik who have been recently dropped but who have the talent to play for India. We should give these people time to blossom, and more importantly, time to fail, instead of constantly bringing in more and more people to play musical chairs with.

Vijay’s selection for this Test is something that I can hope will turn out to be a stroke of intuitive genius, even though I am apprehensive about it. But Vijay’s selection for the ODI team is just plain wrong. The selectors have made their first major blunder. I for one will, as I said, be happy to be proved wrong. But I will be even happier if Chopra and Badrinath are made central components in this selection committee’s planning, and if they are given the security to play freely and prove their worth.

192

2008-11-04T00:29:00.000-08:00

Apologies for not posting last week. There is much to say about Mohali. But I was travelling. I kept a perfunctory glance on the score, making sure we weren't losing. When I checked a couple of days ago, we were meandering, and all was well.

But now I am back home, and this morning, I opened the news, and learnt of Kumble's retirement. And cried. I didn't expect to cry, and I couldn't help it. But there it was. I have watched cricket for 25 years, and Kumble was a part of 18 of them. We may well fare well without him as a team -- Amit Mishra, for instance, did just fine in Mohali. But how will we live without him, as fans? There will be many tributes, and I am not equal to writing one more. But Anil was part of the upholstery, far more solid andd enduring that any tribute can be, than any replacement will be. There will be no other like him.

Farewell, Anil bhai. And, and as a generation of wicket-keepers has said -- shabaash.

My eyes, once again, fill with tears.

11954

2008-10-17T02:06:00.000-07:00

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Rahul Dravid's smile in the dressing room says it all .....

Post-mortem / preview

2008-10-15T23:06:00.000-07:00

This will be brief, but some quick thoughts about the 1st Test, and the 2nd:

Verdict:

Delight. I think drawing the game was a considerable achievement. The pitch in Bangalore was one that definitely favored the team batting first, even though the final day pitch didn’t crack up as much as expected; Bangalore remains one of our worst grounds anywhere in the world; and our cricket history is littered with fifth day ghosts. So all said and done, I think the draw was well-earned and pleasing. Especially pleasing was that the Fab Four all looked at ease and confident – clearly they are relieved at playing Anyone but Ajantha!

There have been some reality checks on this, most eloquently by Siddharth Monga on cricinfo, who is an author I like. At some point in all the reality checks, there is an assertion that this Australian team is one of the weakest ever. I don’t buy that. The only differences between this team and the one we played in Australia are – Katich for Jaques (hardly a downward swap); White for Hogg (Hogg was hardly a terrifying prospect); and Haddin for Gilchrist. So the really big absence from the winter is Gilchrist – who in any case wasn’t at his best either in front of or behind the wicket on that tour.

If anything, the presence of Shane Watson gives Australia better balance. Watson is not the imposing batsman that Andrew Symonds is, but he is a far better bowler. For years, the Aussies have played four front-line bowlers with the likes of Symonds and Clarke backing up. Watson gives them the possibility of playing five frontline bowlers. With Irfan Pathan nowhere in the reckoning, India just does not have an all-rounder to match up to Watson. The one real weakness Australia does have is in the spin department – I really don’t think White will amount to much, nor do I think that Jason Krejza will cause our batsmen sleepless nights. The Aussies might well do better playing an extra batsman in Jaques, having Watson play at 7, and having Clarke and Katich share spin duties.

First worry:

Obviously, Kumble. His poor showing was not a one-off – he has now lacked zip and bite ever since returning from Australia, and his captaincy felt flat and unimaginative. One could make a compelling case that Munaf Patel would be a better bet for Mohali. For one thing, Mohali will be a bouncier pitch, which will help Munaf. For another, Munaf has been in good form of late. And for a third, that will allow Dhoni to lead – for the brief time that he was in charge in Bangalore, there was a distinct buzz about India’s performance. But one could also make the opposite argument in each case – Kumble too thrives on bouncy wickets; Munaf has done well in one-days, but remains notoriously temperamental to trust him in Tests; and leading well for an hour is one thing, for five days something else altogether. At the end of the day, I’m sure that Kumble will play if he’s fit. I just hope that he is honest with himself about how he is feeling, and doesn’t go in if he’s less than 100%.

The basic problem, though, isn’t with Kumble, but with team balance. The fact is that, in recent times, our seamers have generally looked more potent than our spinners (Kumble in Australia being the big exception). Even when Bhajji has picked up wickets, as against South Africa and Sri Lanka, it has often been at great cost. So we have generally looked more dangerous when playing three seamers – as in England last year, or in Perth – regardless of who that third seamer has been. (R.P. Singh, Pathan and Sreesanth have all stepped up to the plate at various times). But accommodating a third seamer means either dropping one of Bhajji or Kumble, or dropping a batsman – and both of those options are, shall we say, courageous or controversial, and not something that this team management is likely to do, certainly in this series. So I expect that Munaf will remain on the bench, which will mean that there will continue to be lots of pressure on Zaheer and Ishant to deliver. Ishant, in particular, is doubling up as a strike bowler and a stock bowler – getting pace and bounce, but also bowling 8 or 9 over spells. For a big series like this, it is probably alright to push him that extra yard, but it’s not really the ideal way to manage him over the long term. At some point, unless Kumble and Bhajji both are bowling at their best, we have to start at least considering three seamers as the norm even for home Tests, and think about either benching one of the spinners or taking the risk of playing one batsman less.

Second worry:

That latter option would be a lot easier if Dhoni could reassure as a no. 6 batsman. At this point, he doesn’t reassure me even at 7. He was the one person other than Kumble to look completely out of sorts in Bangalore. His keeping has become top-notch, and I think that is what he needs to be selected for; and he is probably ready for the Test captaincy whenever it is given to him; but he is still unconvincing as a Test batsman. I am not quite sure why he has changed his game so much in Tests, almost to the point of becoming a plodder. That is not his natural game, and he doesn’t thrive on it. His place in the side is secure, but at some point, sooner or later, he is going to need to start delivering with the bat in Tests more consistently – especially if and when he becomes Test captain, the pressure will mount on him very quickly if he is underperforming with the bat. In one-days and T20s, he is not just an inspirational captain, but also the undisputed leader of the team with the bat – and the latter feeds his confidence and authority as captain. So hopefully he can figure out a way to get amongst the runs.

Admiration:

Partisanship aside, what a batsman Michael Hussey is! Mr. Cricket indeed. Not the most exciting batsman, but such an unflappable temperament, and such a precise player. Pietersen, Sangakkara, Sehwag, Ponting, Jayawardene and Symonds are probably the best batsmen in world cricket today simply for their match-turning abilities; but I bet that Hussey (along with Chanderpaul) must be right up there amongst the batsmen that bowlers least want to bowl to. He seems to have set himself up for a very big series here.

All in all, though, it is game on now. I think the Aussies are still the favorites going into Mohali, but hopefully we can at least stare them in the eye and keep them on their toes.

Mid-match thoughts

2008-10-11T23:41:00.000-07:00

It’s dangerous to post in the middle of a match, because so much could happen that could make these thoughts redundant over the next couple of days. Especially in an India-Australia Test match. But I have to say that, at lunch on Day 4, it looks like the beginning of another cracker-jack series.

I must confess that I gave India little chance in this game to start with. Bangalore is one of our four or five worst grounds, and our middle order going into this game was either woefully out of form or out of match practice. The two batsmen who did reasonably well in Sri Lanka, Dravid and Laxman, have terrible records in Bangalore. So it felt to me like it was really only the openers who provided our batting with any substance at all. This is really ironic, when you think about it, given that for much of the past two decades, it was the absence of good openers that invariably led to India’s downfall. Now we have an outstanding opening pair, with Akash Chopra pushing hard for a comeback, and Wasim Jaffer showing in the warm-up game that he shouldn’t be completely written off.

I still think Australia are favorites to win this game. If they bat the next two sessions, they should be about 225-odd ahead. Unless they are bowled out by then, they might not press for a declaration that early. But an hour into Day 5, and they could stretch that lead close to 275, which on this wicket would probably be too much to chase in the remaining time unless Viru really gets stuck in. This would leave India with two-and-a-half sessions to save the game, which, given the way the pitch is breaking up, would actually be quite a tough ask. The good news is the gumption that Dravid and Ganguly showed in the first innings. But Laxman and Dhoni looked completely out of sorts, and Sachin’s second innings vulnerabilities are well known. So in those circumstances, saving the game could well depend on the openers and on the weather gods in Bangalore being kind to us. Otherwise, we could well be left with a Sydney-like finish, where it would be up to our tail to see us through to Mohali without damage.

Some thoughts, then, on the game so far. Really the difference between the two sides at this point has been the fielding and running in between wickets. The Indian in-fielders in the first innings were supposedly in “run saving” positions, but there was no evidence of them saving runs. Compared to that, the likes of Clarke and Hussey were swooping around all over the place for Australia. The 70 run difference, and then some, can be located just in this difference. While India will miss Kumble’s bowling on a second innings pitch, the good that could come of this is that Badrinath will be on the field. In the first few overs, he has already been chafing around the covers in predatory fashion, and I bet having him out in the field will make a substantial difference to the number of easy runs the Indians concede.

The other difference between the sides lies in team balance. India has predictably gone in with just four frontline bowlers, and two of them bowled their hearts out to keep the Aussies in check. But good Test teams play five bowlers. We cannot afford to play only 6 specialist batsmen in this series, especially because Dhoni to me has not yet proven himself as a number 7 Test batsman, so the thought of him batting at 6 is not an edifying one. Hence, the absence of quality all-rounder in the mold of a Watson or a Symonds or a Kallis or a Flintoff is really hurting us. Irfan Pathan is the closest we have to that, and his bowling form at the moment doesn’t warrant him a place in the one-day side, let alone in Tests. And I don’t see anyone in domestic cricket at the moment who is a good enough all-rounder to be batting at 6 or 7 in Tests. This is the biggest obstacle to our being the unquestioned number 2 Test team in the world.

Given that we have only four frontline bowlers, it becomes imperative to imaginatively use our part-timers, Sehwag, Ganguly and Sachin. This wicket has very little swing in it, so it’s not really a wicket for Ganguly. But I think Kumble was very unimaginative in his use (or rather, non-use) of Viru as a bowler. The last time he was used properly as a fifth bowler was in the West Indies a couple of years ago, on wickets not that dissimilar to those found in the sub-continent. And he rose to the occasion, consistently out-bowling Harbhajan Singh in that series. Viru really is a good enough bowler to be getting 12-15 overs an innings consistently, like the Aussies get out of Michael Clarke when playing on slow turners. In Kumble’s absence, Viru will perforce have a job to do later today, and I hope that he will do well enough to force the captain to consider him more often later in the series.

Indeed, I’m happy that Dhoni will be leading the side today. I have great respect for Kumble as a captain, but he is a captain who leads by example rather than by proactive strategizing on the field. So when his own bowling form is off, as it has been ever since his return from Australia, what we are left with is a conventional and rather defensive captain. I have real doubts about Dhoni as a Test batsman, but there is little doubt about his leadership skills. These have been witnessed not just in the one-day and T20 arena, but also most dramatically in the Kanpur Test against South Africa, where his captaincy had a lot to do with our leveling the series.

Indeed, Kumble’s shoulder injury might be a good alibi for him to sit out of the Mohali Test. It seems clear from this Test that India will be better off with three frontline seamers rather than two specialist spinners, especially given the form Munaf Patel has been in compared to Kumble and Harbhajan, and especially if Viru is used intelligently as the second spinner. Don’t get me wrong – I still think Kumble has some cricket left in him, and I would absolutely want him playing the Third Test at the Kotla, his favorite ground. But if we are thinking horses for courses and form selections, then Munaf in Mohali is worth a thought. And Bhajji’s batting and the fact that the next Test is on his home ground might mean that he is a better bet for it than Kumble.

Okay, post-lunch session is about to start, so time to run. Here’s to hoping that we can draw this. But I’m anxious, and I think Michael Clarke with the ball could be a real threat tomorrow. Cheers for now.

A truly fine selection

2008-10-02T09:16:00.000-07:00

A very brief post of delight. I think I can say for the first time in the 25 years I have been watching cricket that the selectors have got it exactly right. Ganguly and Badrinath both deserved call-ups, and appropriately should be battling for that no. 6 spot. I think Munaf over PK, and Mishra over Chawla, are both debatable, but borderline debatable. There is no question that Munaf is the in-form bowler, suspect temperament notwithstanding. And Mishra has absolutely deserved his call-up, which is just reward for years of successful toil on the domestic circuit. Chawla might be a more multi-dimensional cricketer because of his batting, but Mishra is certainly the more classical leg-spinner, and deserves his chance. I would like to see Akash Chopra come into the picture at some point this season, but in a team of 15 a third opener is always hard to slot in when your problems are in the middle-order. Hopefully Chopra will come into the reckoning for the tours to Pakistan and New Zealand in early 2009.

All in all, a terrific debut by Messrs. Srikkanth and co, and I am cautiously optimistic that we can give the Aussies a real run for their money.

Indian team for Oz series

2008-09-26T14:20:00.000-07:00

Less than a fortnight away from the Test series against Australia, my confident prediction is – we’re screwed. Much was made of the famed failure of the Fab Four in Sri Lanka, and how this heralded the beginning of the end for them, if not the end itself. And yet, with a new selection committee tasked with picking the team for the next series, the question that presents itself is one that should have occurred to all the pundits two months ago viz. who will replace them?

The clarity on that answer is comparable to the clarity in the US Congress on how to resolve the latest financial crisis. Frankly, I don’t think anyone has a clue. It is all very well to high-mindedly talk about phasing out seniors and succession plans and so on. But in order to have a succession plan in place, you have to have successors. It is not entirely clear who the next generation of Indian middle-order batsmen will be.

On the face of it, the answer seems obvious – replace Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly with, eventually, Badrinath, Rohit Sharma, Kaif / Yuvraj and Raina. But there are questions about Yuvraj’s Test ability, and at the moment his form is so poor that even his one-day spot cannot be taken for granted. Kaif has been treated badly in the past, but his ability against the short ball, not to mention Raina’s, is every bit as questionable as Ganguly’s (except that Ganguly isn’t afraid to counterattack even when he’s technically out of his depth). Rohit looks like he could be a Test batsman yet, but at this point it’s all appearance. Even in one-dayers, he makes pretty 40s and 50s before throwing it away, and on the little evidence we have from his one full season for Mumbai, he just hasn’t developed the temperament to play long innings in the longer form of the game. This really leaves Badri as the only person from the next generation who is, in my mind, ready for an India Test cap right away.

I have two problems with the way this transition has been conceptualized so far. The first is when it has been done. The second is how it has been done.

First, when. Sure, we failed in Sri Lanka. But this “long-term” ideal of building for the future – what exactly are we building for? The biggest Test match event in world cricket for us is a series against Australia. For such a series, shouldn’t we be playing our best team, instead of looking to the long haul? In many ways, a Test series against the Aussies is an even bigger deal than the World Cup. After all, in the last three editions of the latter, the gulf between the Aussies and the no. 2 team has been huge. So even if there is a case for phasing out the seniors, it should have started after the Australia series, against England.

Second, how. I have read things about how the dropping of Ganguly is a courageous move, the sort of thing the Aussies would have done, etc. Really? A courageous move would have been to drop the weakest link of the Fab Four, not to drop the person who is the easiest to make a scapegoat of. Over the past two years, Ganguly has made more runs than any of the other three. His average during this time has been comparable to that of Sachin and Laxman, and a good 12 runs per innings higher than Dravid’s. It has also been 4 runs an innings higher than his career average (unlike Sachin’s, which is nearly 8 runs below his career average), suggesting that Ganguly has been playing some of his best cricket in recent times. And the innings that he has played have come at crucial times, such as his match-winning knock in Kanpur that allowed us to level the South Africa series. His gentle medium pacers have been crucial, especially in Indian conditions, given that we tend to go in with just 4 bowlers and are often tempted to play two spinners amongst them. If anyone had to go, then Ganguly should have been the last person to be axed.

If what we were talking about is fairness and courage, then by rights, Dravid’s and Sachin’s positions ought to be far more vulnerable than Ganguly’s. Dravid’s average of 33 over the past two years is paltry for a no. 3, and he has often gotten bogged down and surrendered the initiative to the opposition.

Sachin’s case is trickier. On the one hand, he was awesome in Australia, and a career average of nearly 70 against the Aussies is not something to scoff at. On the other hand, his innings have remained ones that have not been match-defining, the way Laxman’s and Ganguly’s (and in the more distant past, Dravid’s) have been. Whether we need to save a game or win it, Sachin has been missing in action more often than not. A career second innings average that hovers near the 20 mark is a disgrace. It doesn’t just put him a notch below the greats – it puts him along with the mediocre. And of course, he was as big a failure in Sri Lanka as Ganguly was, so if immediate form is the consideration, there is absolutely no justification for keeping Sachin in and Ganguly out.

My biggest concern with Sachin however is not statistics, but the fact that he is returning from injury. In principle, I would be absolutely happy to have him in the 11 to play the Aussies if I knew he was match-fit. But the best players in the world have to prove themselves in domestic cricket if they are returning from injury. Sachin’s body has clearly slowed, and two years ago it was clear that his returns from injury have become slow, painful and protracted affairs. To just throw him into the playing 11 straight away because he has been declared fit, without even an Irani game to back him up, is going to be utter disaster. The last time this happened, in 2006, Sachin was like a zombie, and it took months of competitive cricket for him to run back into form. If we wanted to really talk courage, really act like Aussies, then we would have the courage to bench Sachin until he had proved his fitness.

This is why the dropping of Ganguly is so inexplicable. Alright, if you think his days are numbered in Tests, then tell him so, make it clear, don’t select him for the Tests. But what earthly justification was there for dropping him from the Irani Trophy? Shouldn’t everyone be given a fair chance to fail? Especially someone who has performed years of yeoman service like Ganguly, and who at the end of the day has probably contributed more to this Indian team becoming world-beaters than Sachin has? This act was particularly egregious given that it was the Vengsarkar committee’s last act. Effectively, they have made it virtually impossible for the new committee to pick Ganguly for the entire series. The Ranji Trophy doesn’t start till November 10, and Bengal this year plays in the Plate League; so even if Ganguly makes runs there, it will be against third-rate opposition, and too late for the Aussies. What was the committee so afraid of? That Ganguly would succeed? Wouldn’t Ganguly’s success have been a good thing? It should have been so simple – if Ganguly had failed in the Irani, the new selection committee could have decided, in all fairness, what do to with him. If he had succeeded, then one of our best and most competitive batsmen would have been in the frame to meet the Aussies. As it happens, Vengsarkar’s final act as selector has turned out to one of unspeakable hubris, which completely fails to serve the interests of Indian cricket.

So now, look at the situation we are faced with. A Test on October 9 in Bangalore, which is notoriously one of the worst grounds for Indian fortunes anywhere in the world. Badri is the one newcomer good enough to be drafted in. That means Dravid must play regardless of form, on a ground where his own performance has been terrible. (His Test average in Bangalore is 20.54, against a career average of nearly 54). If Sachin plays as well, then that means we will have a debutant, an out-of-form number 3 on his worst ground, and an out-of-form number 4 coming back from injury with absolutely no match practice up against the Aussies. Given that Dhoni is yet to translate his one-day batting abilities to Tests, this effectively leaves our openers and Laxman shouldering the batting. And a four-man bowling attack tasked with getting 20 wickets.

Did I say we’re screwed?

The team that follows, then, is the team that I think should be selected against the Aussies. It is not the team that will be selected. I don’t think any selection committee has the courage to drop Sachin, and I think this selection committee, because of what it has been bequeathed, will struggle to pick Ganguly. But the latter does remain a possibility. After all, one of the new selectors, Yashpal Sharma, was one of Sourav’s staunchest supporters in the Greg Chappell debacle. Perhaps Raja Venkat will stick to zonal considerations and push him as the East Zone selector. And perhaps one of the other three will recognize that nothing they have seen in the Irani Trophy suggests that any of Sourav’s replacements will handle the Aussies any better; that making 40 or 50 in one-day games is not qualification enough to throw Raina or Rohit into the Test cauldron either; and that therefore, for this series at least, there is no alternative but to go back to Sourav.

So, here goes:

There is little doubt that Sehwag and Gambhir open. And for me, there is little doubt that Laxman and Ganguly have to be in the middle order, at 4 and 5. I think Badri has done enough to earn a call-up, so I will have him make his debut at 6. Dhoni keeps wickets at 7. Zaheer and Ishant lead the attack, while Kumble and Bhajji provide the spin bowling options.

All that leaves is the number 3 spot. And looking beyond Dravid, as I have suggested earlier, none of the younger aspirants really captures my imagination. However, I think there is one other contender. And that is Akash Chopra.

Think about it. Chopra is technically the soundest batsman in India after Dravid. He is still only 31 – considered “old” in India, but really the sort of age at which most batsmen are at their peak. He has experience playing Australia. He is in stellar form – top scorer in first class cricket last year with three double hundreds; and fresh from making 180-odd against a pretty useful Pakistani attack in the game against SNGP XI last week. He looked like one of the most comfortable batsmen in the Irani game, and has added a range of shots to what used to be a one-dimensional defensive game. He is also the best close-in fielder in Indian cricket, and that is an area of some concern. So Chopra is capable of picking up catches that could turn matches. And he is brilliant between the wickets, having a terrific understanding with his two Delhi mates who will be at the top of the order.

Whether Dravid plays at 3 or Chopra would be a close call. Given Dravid’s history at Bangalore, there could be a strong case for giving Chopra a go. On the other hand, Dravid did make 60 in his last Test innings, and 60 in the Irani Trophy, so he is showing some semblance of form. My own sentimental admiration for Dravid would probably push me to give him a chance first; though Chopra at 3 would be the more courageous decision. Either way, Chopra needs to be back in the picture for this series.

And Sachin? Why not have him on the substitutes’ bench? There is no other cricket being played anyway. If the likes of Anil Kumble and Ganguly could sit on the bench in years gone by, why can’t Sachin now? Let him travel with the team, and provide sage advice. Let him get fit in the nets, and come onto the field as substitute to get some match time. And if Dravid or Ganguly or Badri are found wanting, then let him be in the picture for the latter half of the series if he’s shaping up well in the nets. But for him to say on September 21 that he is not fit enough to play Irani, and on September 28 that he is fit enough to play Australia a week later, is like John McCain saying on September 15 that the US economy is strong, and then say on September 24 that it is in such crisis that he has to suspend his presidential campaign. If India really is to match Australia, then Sachin has to be treated like a normal human being.

That only leaves a couple of other reserve spots. R.P. Singh is an obvious choice as back-up third seamer. And Munaf Patel, who has done well of late, might be the other back-up. Personally, though, I still have my doubts about Munaf as a Test bowler. As he showed in the Irani, he can be brilliant in one innings and utterly ordinary the next. And his bad behavior towards the likes of Sehwag and Chopra shows him in poor light. I would frankly stick my neck out and pull Praveen Kumar into Test consideration instead. There is a belief that PK is too slow to be a Test bowler, but that is one of those pre-conceived notions that sticks and has no basis in fact. (Sort of like people still saying Dravid is not a one-day batsman, even though he has been one of the most successful one-day batsmen in the world this decade). I watch the speed-gun when PK bowls in one-dayers, and he consistently bowls 132-135 kph – which, by the way, is exactly the speed at which Munaf or Zaheer Khan bowl most of the time. What I like about PK is his commitment, his consistency, and his fitness – he has after all taken 90+ wickets in the last two seasons of first class cricket, so has actually proven himself in the four-day format in a way that someone like Rohit Sharma never has.

My 16th spot would go to a reserve spinner, and I think that has to be Piyush Chawla. It is time to seriously start grooming Kumble’s successor, and while still a little raw, I think PC is the man. He is certainly a far superior bowler to Pragyan Ojha. Hopefully now that Venkatapathy Raju is no longer selector, that particular nepotistic selection will be reversed.

Hence, my team for the Aussie series:

Virendra Sehwag
Gautam Gambhir
Rahul Dravid (or Akash Chopra)
V.V.S. Laxman
Sourav Ganguly
Subramaniam Badrinath
Mahendra Dhoni (V) (W)
Anil Kumble ©
Harbhajan Singh
Zaheer Khan
Ishant Sharma

Reserves:

Akash Chopra (or Rahul Dravid)
Sachin Tendulkar
R.P. Singh
Praveen Kumar
Piyush Chawla

May never happen in a month of Sundays, but here’s to hoping. And then perhaps we won’t quite be screwed.

(A p.s. – I have to grudgingly eat my many words from previous months about Harbhajan Singh. I still have doubts about his temperament and his ability to win matches abroad. But he has come back strongly after the Sreesanth Slap, and bowled well in Sri Lanka, so kudos to him. Hopefully, regardless of how well he bowls, he will add value to the side in this series by getting under Ponting’s skin. That alone would be worth the price of admission).

Badri Rocks! and Other Reflections

2008-08-20T12:06:00.000-07:00

I have to say that I am very happy with the results of the first two ODIs. The defeat in the first ODI was sweet, because it made a lot of pundits look very silly. After the Tests, everyone was shouting from the rooftops – with great joy, it seemed – that the Fab Four were finished. Well, the youngsters who should have been salvation looked even more clueless. Let’s face it – Ajantha Mendis is a phenomenon, certainly the most exciting bowler to come along in world cricket since Mohammad Asif. Of course, Asif’s travails show that such talent can go horribly wrong – but that wasn’t because batsmen managed to figure him out. Our batting failure was not because of the decline of the seniors, but because of the genius of Mendis.

And now, we have won the second ODI to restore parity. Zaheer Khan showed yet again that, if there’s a little bit in the wicket, there are few bowlers in the world who can swing it as well as he can. But for me, the real joy and vindication was the manner in which Subramaniam Badrinath batted. This should be no surprise to those who read this blog, since it is clear from many previous posts that I am a huge fan of Badri’s.

Let us start by considering the enormous amount of pressure that Badri must have been under. For one thing, in spite of being the most consistent domestic run getter for the past three or four years, he has been constantly overlooked for younger, and generally inferior, batsmen. It could be argued that Raina and Rohit Sharma are prodigious talents; but nothing really justifies the likes of Uthappa, Manoj Tiwary or Virat Kohli getting debuts ahead of him. Given the way things work in Indian cricket, Badri must have been wondering whether he would go the way of Sridharan Sriram – scoring prolifically in domestic cricket, but never getting a fair chance at the international level.

So – it took injuries to Tendulkar, Sehwag and Gambhir to actually get Badri into the playing 11. Then, he was asked to bat at 7. This is not an ideal position for Badri to be batting in, since he is ideally the sort of batsman who likes to build an innings, not someone who likes to come in play the role of a quick finisher. This is exactly what had been asked of Sriram – who was an opener in domestic cricket, primarily an accumulator, and asked invariably to bat at 7 in the odd chance he got in ODIs. Of course, this treatment of Badri is not all that surprising – Dhoni had treated Badri in precisely the same manner in the IPL, with Badri nonetheless responding in enterprising fashion in the chances that he got. Had he been consistently given a chance in the top 5, as he should have been, there is little doubt in my mind that he would have been as big a success as Raina or Rohit were. And finally, he had to make his debut against Mendis and Murali, with the confidence of the Indian batting in a shambles.

27 not out is no great shakes; and if he is giving the chances, he will play far more important innings than he did today. But the fact remains that had he gotten out cheaply, Sri Lanka would have more than likely won the match quite handily.

There are two things that impressed me most about the way Badri batted. The first was his absolutely unruffled temperament, and the way in which he tailored his game to the situation. It was clear that what was needed was to stay till the end. The asking rate was moderate, and Dhoni was keeping the scoreboard ticking at the other end. So Badri cut out the frills, played no nonsense cricket, and kept the scoreboard ticking with some absolutely brilliant running in between wickets. What was impressive in the running was not just the speed, but the judgment.

The second was the way he read Mendis. Mendis is such a good bowler that he is going to bowl unplayable deliveries to the best of batsmen. But the fact remains that if one considers both Tests and one-dayers, there are only five Indian batsmen who have shown any degree of comfort against him – Sehwag, Gambhir and Badri, and to a lesser extent Dravid and Dhoni. Viru is a genius, while Dhoni manages by playing late thanks to his remarkable bat-speed. But the success of the other three is purely down to technique. Someone who has the technique to read a bowler of Mendis’s caliber the first time he plays him is surely someone to take seriously.

There are elements of three batsmen that I see in Badri. The first is Hemang Badani. He too looked very much like Badri when he first came into the Indian side. The same unruffled temperament, an ability to play straight yet finish well, brilliant in the field and between wickets. He was integral to the “21st century” Indian team that was imagined at the start of John Wright’s tenure, along with the likes of Yuvraj and Mohammad Kaif. But the selectors finished him, never giving him an extended run and dropping him when he succeeded. Let us remember that in the series just before he was dropped for good, he had made a match-winning 60-odd against Australia in the 2003-04 VB Series – which was, as it happens, the only game we won against the Aussies in that series. He was rewarded by being replaced by Rohan Gavaskar, who held on to Badri’s spot through the summer of 2004 and ended his one-day career with a glorious average of 17. (Of course, we know that success against the Aussies is a poisoned chalice – every time Murali Kartik bowls us to a win against them, he gets dropped). So – regardless of how well Badri plays, there are enough examples before him – of Sridharan Sriram and Hemang Badani most immediately – of people who have received the axe for no fault of theirs. My worry is that Badri will always be held to a higher standard than his competitors, and made to suffer as a consequence. (And since I hate to bring questions of regional bias into the analysis, I will assert that surely it must be a coincidence that all of the above are from Tamilnadu …).

The second is Michael Hussey. This is the anti-Badani story. It starts in a similar way, but because the Aussies respect performance over pre-conceived prejudices, Hussey has gone on to become one of the best players in the game. The selectors have a choice – they can treat Badri like Hussey, or they can treat him like Badani. No prizes for guessing which will benefit India more. But like Hussey, Badri comes into the side on the back of a long wait and many years of prolific domestic scoring; he is not the most blindingly exciting batsman in the team (doesn’t have Raina’s strokes, or Rohit’s élan, or Yuvraj’s sheer arrogance) – just like Hussey is no Ponting, or Clarke, or Symonds to watch, but often outperforms all three of them. Of course, Indians too often value appearance over substance, which is why someone like Hussey would probably have never gotten a fair run in the Indian system, even if he had managed a look-in; but there is a lesson to be learnt from the way Australia nurtured Hussey, and Badri is the person to apply it to.

The third is Rahul Dravid. Dravid’s technique has a little more flourish than Badri’s – the former performs these little arabesques even on his defensive strokes, like a ballet dancer performing an intricate move – but the basic principle for both is the same. They have a very composed stance and stay very still, they play absolutely straight, they get their foot to the pitch of the ball for their defensive strokes, and they play very late. Indeed, the manner in which Badri handled Murali in particular was strikingly similar to the way Dravid plays him. Like Dravid, Badri has the ability to consolidate, but clearly can also play his strokes. Hence, in the one-day context, he looks like the ideal replacement for Dravid at the pivotal no. 5 position – someone who can consolidate in case of early dismissals, who can keep things ticking over in the middle through good running in between wickets, and who can accelerate if required at the end. He should be locked into that position, and now.

Indeed, while there is some value to having floating one-day positions, what this means is that India’s one-day batting order could potentially acquire a set look to it. The very best teams like the Aussies, after all, are those that experiment with batting orders not as a rule, but as an exception.

So – what we could ideally have is Sehwag and Gambhir opening, and Badri at 5 as the fixed positions. Yuvraj and Dhoni would ideally be 3 and 4, in either order. In an ideal world, I would like to have MS at 3 – he has been our most consistent one-day batsman along with Gambhir for some time now, and I strongly believe that our best batsmen should be batting as early as possible. Also, he averages above 70 at 3. But against teams that have quality spin attacks (basically Sri Lanka, and maybe New Zealand because of Vettori), I would have Dhoni bat at 4, because he is a much better player of spin than Yuvraj is. In either case, 6 is way too low for him. This would leave Raina and Rohit battling for the no. 6 spot on form. Whoever misses out would form one of the reserves, and Shikhar Dhawan would be ideal as a back-up opener. A batting order of Sehwag, Gambhir, Dhoni, Yuvraj, Badri and Raina / Rohit, with Rohit / Raina and Dhawan in reserve, would be a class act and a look to the future. Of course, this would involve taking the courageous decision of dropping Tendulkar from the one-day side – but the point being that if the likes of Badri are giving a central role to play, then we can indeed afford to look beyond Sachin in the shorter version of the game without missing him too much.

In the context of the next game, of course, there is no Sehwag. Hopefully Gambhir will be fit, but not sending a replacement for Viru is stupid in the extreme, because Virat Kohli does not look like an opener to me. (Indeed, he doesn’t look like much of a batsman. Full marks for hanging in to make 37 today, but as Dean Jones pointed out, his technique against the in-swinger is so vulnerable that, unless it is improved, good opposition bowlers will “chew him up”. His technique against the out-swinger isn’t much better, and there were any number of occasions today when he desperately attempted the sorts of fishing expeditions outside off-stump that would have made Vikram Rathore proud. That he was preferred to Badri at the start of the series boggles the mind). Badri should be playing at 5, while Dhoni should be batting at 4, so that the two middle order batsmen who handle Mendis best can form the heart of the line-up.

I would also stick to Raina at 3, since he has done well there of late, and take the bold move of sending Yuvraj up to open with Gambhir. This is partly because I don’t think we gain anything by sending out makeshift openers like Irfan Pathan, and, as I’ve just said, Kohli doesn’t look like an opener to me. But on a more positive note – Yuvraj clearly is in pristine form, but is utterly clueless against Mendis. He has the ability to cause a lot of damage if he can get face-time against the quicker bowlers, but is virtually a write-off against Mendis. Hence, in the context of this series and in Viru’s absence, playing Yuvi at the top of the order would be a bold move. Kohli and Rohit would basically face off for the no.6 spot – Rohit is a far better batsman, but Kohli might deserve another chance after his 37, especially given Rohit’s poor form. My team for Colombo then would read – Gambhir, Yuvraj, Raina, Dhoni, Badri, Rohit / Kohli, Pathan, Praveen, Harbhajan, Zaheer, Munaf.

One last parenthetic point. I have been less than effusive about Dhoni, and Satish has rightly called me out on it. So let me set the record straight on my thoughts regarding him. I think he is a remarkable one-day batsman. His talent was never in doubt, but the way he has developed into a dependable middle-order batsman who can tailor his game to the situation has been a revelation. And I think he has developed into India’s best wicket-keeper. He isn’t a natural, but he has grown into the role; and even when he was troubled by late swing in England last summer, he didn’t drop a catch. But his Test batting, so far, remains largely unproven, and his only Test innings of real significance was his match-saving 76 at Lord’s. That is slender pickings for someone who has now been in the Test side for more than three years.

Dinesh Karthik was terrible in front of and behind the stumps in Sri Lanka; but purely on ability, he has shown in the past to be a fine wicket-keeper; and a more versatile Test batsman than Dhoni. By more versatile, what I mean is that he too can tailor the way he plays to the situation; but he also provides an opening batting option, which Dhoni doesn’t. So one could imagine a situation, say, where Badrinath bats at 7 in the Test side, and DK opens and keeps wicket. That kind of flexibility is not allowed with Dhoni in the side. But also in terms of results – the fact of the matter is, DK top-scored in Tests in England last year, and that is no mean feat, against one of the better attacks in world cricket. In spite of many more chances and far greater security in the side, MS has not managed anything near that kind of accomplishment as a Test batsman.

Don’t get me wrong – purely on keeping record, I would pick MS as my no. 1 keeper in both forms of the game. But my point is that, if we looked at keeping ability + batting record, then the only thing that keeps Dhoni’s spot secure over DK’s is his hierarchy in the side – that he is Test vice-captain, one-day captain, and advertising superstar.

It is not for me to judge whether MS feels threatened by DK or not. But my point is, in objective terms, DK ought to be a threat to MS’s spot, at least in Tests. Given this, the fact that DK was not even given a look-in throughout the CB Series was peculiar, to say the least. Dhoni may generally be a good and fair-minded captain – but he has already shown that he is willing to make ruthless decisions (surely, the dropping of Dravid and Ganguly from the one-day side when both were playing well has much to do with Dhoni’s wishes to build for the future), and the way DK has been treated over the past year has been ruthless and relatively unreasonable. (One can at least argue about the merits of the seniors’ sacking, in terms of vision, building for the future, etc).

But enough of all that. For now, let us celebrate Dhoni the batsman for his fine innings today, and raise a toast to Badri. May he be treated well.

Sri Lanka Test series post-mortem

2008-08-13T00:05:00.000-07:00

I have come across two distinct types of post-mortem for the Sri Lanka Test series. The first is Dileep Premachandran’s on cricinfo, which is expectedly brilliant, and not something that I can add much upon. The second is the tripe in the Indian media (I have only read The Hindu and Times of India), which has immediately turned it into a “Does the Fab Four have a future anymore?” tirade. So let me try and add my two cents, hopefully more in the Premachandran vein.

Let us face it – we were beaten by a team that, under the conditions, was the superior team. “Under the conditions” is key – Sri Lanka have always been a formidable presence at home, and India is not the first team to experience that. But their performances abroad have been no better than India’s had been through the 1990s. At the end of the day, there isn’t a huge amount separating the teams that are vying for the no. 2 spot – India, Sri Lanka, South Africa, and England. But of the four, India and South Africa have consistently shown their ability to perform abroad, while England has now lost successive series at home to South Africa and India. Was Sri Lanka the better team in the series? Absolutely. Are they a better Test team than India? I certainly don’t think so. If one puts things in perspective, then really it is India and South Africa that can legitimately lay claim to the no. 2 Test spot. And of the two, South Africa is yet to trouble the Aussies the way India has consistently done.

Why was Sri Lanka so much the better side this time around? The simple answer really is Ajantha Mendis. After all, a very similar Sri Lankan side that also included Jayasuriya came to India a couple of years ago, and they were hammered. Sri Lanka minus Mendis has also looked a pretty ordinary side for the whole year since the World Cup. One can talk about how Mendis will eventually be figured out till one is blue in the face, but the fact is that he is an exceptional talent, and unless he goes wrong in the head, is bound to become an all-time great. I can only count a handful of times in my cricket-watching career when a single bowler has so dominated a Test series – Harbhajan against Australia in 2001; Shane Warne against England early in his career (was it 93?); Kumble against England in 93; Malcolm Marshall against England in 88; Imran Khan against India in 83. Of these, all except Bhajji are acknowledged as all-time greats of the game.

The thing with Mendis is that he combines two remarkable attributes. He has the ability to keep it straight and keep coming at the batsmen like Kumble; but he spins the ball in as many directions as Warne, and sometimes as prodigiously. That is a deadly combination.

There are two things that make this Sri Lankan attack particularly potent against the sort of batsmen that India has. The first is that the Indians are fine when they can keep the scoreboard ticking at one end. They have always struggled against Murali, for instance, but have in the past adopted a strategy where they would see him out and open up against someone else at the other end. That is, indeed, what they did in Australia as well – saw off Lee, and took on the others. When Stuart Clark hit his straps in Melbourne, India struggled. Once they got a handle on Clark for the rest of the series, they basically prospered. The second is that India doesn’t do well when its batsmen are so completely shackled, and Murali and Mendis are, first and foremost, containing bowlers. (This is in contrast to Warne, who is always looking for wickets and experimenting). The Indians at the end of the day do better against someone like Warne, because if they have the opportunity to keep releasing pressure with scoring shots, they stay on top of the game in their head. But other than Dravid and to some extent Laxman, they do not have the ability to play the kind of attritional innings that Sangakkara played at the P. Sara – which is why, while dominating the likes of Warne, they have succumbed to the likes of Paul Harris. The last time a team did such an effective job of throttling the Indians was when Australia toured in 2004 – Gilchrist basically set defensive fields, Gillespie and Kasprowicz gave nothing away, and India succumbed tamely.

Anyway, all things considered, let us give credit where credit is due – this Lankan side has a few things going for it. The first is that, when fully fit, it probably has the best and most varied bowling attack in the world, with Vaas, Malinga, Murali and Mendis, backed up by the likes of Maharoof and Fernando. The second is that, while not quite the batting side that it was in the mid-90s, it has two players of remarkable caliber in Sangakkara and Jayawardene – invariably, even if one fails, the other pulls through for them. Thirdly, with Fleming retired and Vaughan no longer captain, they clearly have the best captain in world cricket in Jayawardene. And fourthly, they have a depth in their cricket that they have lacked in the past – in spite of all the injuries to fast bowlers, they were able to play someone like Dammika Prasad who troubled the Indians; and quality batsmen like Chamara Silva and Chamara Kapugedera are waiting in the wings for a chance. So all said and done, things are looking bright for Sri Lankan cricket, and I am personally very pleased that this is the case. They add luster to the game.

From the Indian perspective, let us start with the bright sparks at the top. Sehwag and Gambhir were simply magnificent. Viru showed that his genius is of a different order even to that of the superstars in the middle order, because when he is on song, he takes things like conditions and quality of the opposition out of the picture. In my mind, purely on ability, he is one of the three best batsmen in world cricket (Sangakkara and Kevin Pietersen being the other two). But he is also the sort of batsman for whom the margin between success and failure is slim, particularly early in his innings. He invariably plays streaky shots or gives chances early in the piece, and four times out of six, that led to an ordinary performance from him. If the edges don’t go to hand, or he gets a life, however, he makes people pay the way few others do, and once he is in a zone, you know that he knows that he can’t be stopped. That his last 11 centuries have resulted in 150+ scores is simply phenomenal. Even “Bradmanesque” would be an inaccurate term for that – a new one will have to be coined.

In some ways, however, Gambhir’s performance was even more heartening. Here is someone who has had to come through the ranks the hard way, and the way he has become a central figure in this side in all forms of the game over the past year has been most heartening. He is no longer just an attacking batsman, but has become Mr. Dependable – bar that horrendous shot in the second innings at P. Sara, he has developed patience, and no longer tries to dominate the bowlers at all times, which often led to his downfall in the past. What is particularly noteworthy is the way he uses his feet to the spinners – only Brian Lara, to my recollection, has handled Murali with such comfort. Purely on technique, Wasim Jaffer is probably the better opener; but Gambhir is so much stronger mentally. When he has finally been given security in the side, he has prospered. Watching him against the Aussies this October will be most interesting.

All things considered, though, it has to be heartening when a series defeat abroad isn’t combined with the immediate lament about the dearth of top-quality openers in the country.

The rest of the picture is rather more dismal, so let me try and think through what went wrong with the middle order. For me, the biggest fault yet again lies not with the players, but with the BCCI. Here are four players who absolutely form the meat of the batting line-up, yet now none of them are part of the one-day scheme of things any longer. All of them are rhythm and form players – when they are in the zone, they are unstoppable, but they have always, throughout their careers, been rusty while coming off a break. Even in Australia, I had pointed out that the BCCI was most culpable for giving us only one warm-up game before the Tests, which meant that Melbourne was basically a write-off before it started. Yet, here again, that is all we got. At least the Indians had a series against Pakistan just before Australia, so while they weren’t accustomed to conditions, they had lots of match-practice going in. Here, they had virtually no competitive cricket for more than two months. Unlike last year, Ganguly and Dravid weren’t playing one-day cricket, which would have at least given them some rhythm and form, while Sachin was coming off injury. From that, they were expected directly to take on bowlers of the caliber of Murali and Mendis. What else would one expect? It is like asking a sprinter to run the 100m in the Olympics without warming up.

The point is, one can make these points till one is blue in the face, but the BCCI knows it will never be held accountable, unless we, the cricket-loving public, figure out a way to make it so (public interest litigation, anyone?!). Suddenly, four of the greatest players in world cricket find their heads on the chopping block, but does Sharad Pawar? Or Niranjan Shah? Or Lalit Modi? Or anyone else who allows the perpetuation of such insane scheduling?

And the BCCI shows no sign of relenting. Once again, these players have two months off, and then have to take on the Aussies cold. (If Sachin is fit for the Champions Trophy, he will have some cricket before the Aussies arrive, otherwise it will be a similar situation to what it was in Sri Lanka). Laxman wanted to make use of that time to play county cricket – but he has been barred from doing so because his county has people who played in the ICL! In other words, petty monopolist one-upmanship against the ICL is more important to the board than getting someone who will be our key batsman against the Aussies into some kind of form. By the laws of most civilized nations in the world, the BCCI’s action against Laxman would not just be petty but illegal, since it would constitute a restriction against practicing one’s trade. But even if Laxman could argue his case in a court of law, one knows for a fact that the slightest whimper out of him would lead to an immediate and vindictive end to his cricketing career. The megalomaniacs at the BCCI have an idea of governance that has elements of the way ruthless dictators, robber barons or petty feudal lords think. It is disgusting in the extreme.

This general tirade apart, let me think through the performances of each of the middle order batsmen on view. Dravid showed as the series progressed that he is getting some of his old form back. He will never again be the batsman that he was in 2002-04, but he still has a lot of cricket left in him. For him, the problem was never with form, but in the mind. If he can clear the cobwebs in his head, and believe in himself as much as his fans believe in him, he will be fine.

Laxman looked the best of the four batsmen on view, which means that, over the past year, he has without a doubt been the most consistent performer in our middle-order. That he is still batting at 6 therefore beggars belief. As was the case in England last year, this means that Laxman too often is batting with the tail, which is not the mode in which he bats best. Even if for some reason 3 and 4 are being held as sacrosanct for Dravid and Tendulkar, there is no justification for Laxman batting below Ganguly. This consistent failure of strategy – disappointingly continued with by Kumble – is really hurting us. Nonetheless, what was worrying about Laxman was his inability to figure Mendis out. He looked as troubled by Mendis as Darryl Cullinan was by Shane Warne. This is basically a function of the sort of batsman Laxman is – he does play across the line when balls are pitched on the stumps, which is why he has also struggled against good wicket-to-wicket swing bowling in places like England and New Zealand. An incoming delivery that pitches on the stumps plays to his on-side strengths; an outgoing delivery that pitches on off and moves away (which is what a conventional leg-spinner or out-swing bowler would bowl) gives him room to manufacture shots on the off-side, and allows his sublime timing and placement to come into play. An outgoing delivery that consistently pitches on middle and leg, which is what Mendis’s carom ball is, however, is one that poses serious questions of Laxman’s technique, and it was something he wasn’t able to come to terms with.

Tendulkar’s problem is the same as it has been over the past three years that he has been wrestling with injury – his ability is intact, but he takes time to get his rhythm back when returning from injury. Yet, because different selectorial standards are applied to him than to others, he automatically regains his place in the side every time, to his detriment as well as to the team’s. If Sachin is fit for the Champions Trophy and gets some cricket under his belt before Australia arrives, then that is good news. If he doesn’t, then the courageous decision of keeping him out of the side and getting him to play some domestic cricket first has at least to be contemplated. Certainly, he needs at the very least to be made to play an Irani Trophy game before the Test series.

From my perspective, Ganguly was the unluckiest of the lot, because he simply looked out of sorts and out of form. That happens to every cricketer all the time, and indeed his disappointing performance in Sri Lanka was no different from Rohit Sharma’s disappointing performances in the preceding one-day tournaments. But such is our obsession with retiring our superstars that the speculations have already begun about Ganguly’s continuation – in spite of the fact that he made more runs than anyone in Test cricket in 2007; in spite of the fact that as recently as the previous series, he saved our skin against South Africa; in spite of the well-known fact that when the chips are down and the going is tough, then he is as dependable as anyone in defying the odds and coming up trumps. I for one am not yet ready to write him off.

In some ways, more worrying than the middle-order was the performance of our two wicket-keepers, Karthik and Parthiv. At one level, I feel sorry for them both, because they were in no win situations. DK in particular has been kept on the margins all year in spite of being our top scorer in England last summer, and has been treated poorly in the ODI scheme of things by Dhoni, who clearly sees him as a threat. Had either succeeded, they would still have no doubt lost their place to Dhoni upon his return. Had they failed, as they have, even their position on the margins would have been vulnerable, as it is now.

Having said this, their keeping was pretty abject, and the difference between them and Prasanna Jayawardene was one of the starkest differences between the two teams in the series. Frankly, purely as a Test batsman, I think DK has done as much over his career with more limited chances than Dhoni has, and both DK and Parthiv provide the added flexibility of being able to open at a pinch. But what is noticeable is just how much Dhoni has improved behind the stumps – even when he was being troubled by late swing in England last summer, he didn’t drop a catch. Given that before Dhoni, we have lost Test series because of poor keeping – Parthiv’s 14 missed chances against the Aussies in 3 Tests in 2004, or Deep Dasgupta’s horrors before that – the value that Dhoni adds purely as a specialist keeper cannot be under-estimated. In that sense, it is worrying that both his immediate back-ups are such poor shows. DK is a better keeper than we have seen in this series – in the past, there have been occasions when he has looked flawless, and if given the right encouragement I still think he is the best man to back Dhoni up. But one has to wonder if Parthiv is really any better behind the stumps now than he was four years ago, in spite of the obvious improvement in front of the stumps. One also wonders whether it is time to groom other back-ups to Dhoni on the basis of their keeping rather than batting abilities. Ajay Ratra was outstanding, and was dropped because of his batting rather than his keeping; he is still in his mid-20s, and active on the domestic circuit. And Orissa’s Halhadar Das is reputed to be one of the safest glove-men in the domestic circuit, so it might be time to see what he can do in tour matches or A tours.

Another huge gulf between the two teams was in the spin department. I must admit that Harbhajan bowled beautifully at Galle; but otherwise, 6 wickets in the remaining two matches is slender pickings, and I am still not entirely at ease at the thought of him leading the attack. More worrying is Kumble’s decline since the Australia series. To be fair, he has struggled throughout his career against Sri Lanka – that is one team that has always figured him out. But he was ordinary against South Africa as well, and that is a team he has been hugely successful against in the past. As with Ganguly, I am not yet ready to write him off – it could be that Australia will bring out the best in him again. But I do think his days are numbered, which is why our lack of a coherent policy in grooming successors to him, as I noted in my previous post, is so worrying. I don’t think that Ojha or Chawla are ready yet for Test cricket, and Powar’s form has been nothing to write home about, which is why for me it is imperative to bring Murali Kartik and Amit Mishra more actively into the scheme of things sooner rather than later.

In the seam department, Ishant Sharma again impressed before injury, and Zaheer showed moments of brilliance. But the latter, since returning from his injury, has been a shadow of the bowler who tormented England last summer. I still think that as a general rule, we are a better team when we play three seamers rather than just two. Even in the first innings at the SSC, Zak and Ishant had created huge pressure on the Lankan top order, but there was no one to back them up and hammer home the advantage. The Lankans in particular are much better at playing spin than seam; but even other teams have developed the ability to play spin well. For instance, Neil MacKenzie and Hashim Amla handled our spinners beautifully, while the likes of Michael Clarke and Andrew Symonds are some of the best players of spin the world. Playing spin is no longer the prerogative of sub-continental batsmen. On the other hand, no one really plays quality swing bowling well, and we have some of the best swing bowlers in world cricket. The English struggled against our swing bowlers last summer in spite of growing up on them, and the Aussies too struggled against them.

The other point to note is that India has looked a match-winning team in series when R.P. Singh has been in the groove. It is true that he disappointed against South Africa; but he was colossal in England and in Australia, and he couples the ability to move the ball both ways with a big heart. I think that if we play two spinners, he should be keeping Zak on his toes; but frankly, would in my gut prefer to play him even on sub-continental conditions to Harbhajan, in spite of the latter’s recent glut of wickets. The bravest thing of all would of course be to play five bowlers and drop either Ganguly or Tendulkar from the playing 11, which would allow us to play three seamers and two spinners – but that sort of courage is unlikely to manifest itself in the Indian team management anytime soon.

All in all, then, Sri Lanka has been a disappointment rather than a disaster. The biggest wake-up call, I think, is in terms of thinking about the future of our spin bowling. The biggest reaction to guard against is the knee-jerk dropping of the seniors from the Test side.

In the meantime, I can’t wait till Ajantha Mendis gets to bowl to the English.

Two dubious selections

2008-08-09T09:21:00.000-07:00

John Wright mentioned in his book about coaching India that one of the major problems with India’s selection practices is that while most people in the team select themselves, the last one or two spots often end up being selected on dubious grounds – whether it is the personal favorite of a selector, or on a zonal basis, or whatever. This observation has yet again been proven true in the Indian team selections for the ODIs in Sri Lanka and the Champions Trophy. The two selections that I am taking issue with are those of Pragyan Ojha over Piyush Chawla, and Virat Kohli over Subramaniam Badrinath. Neither of these are major selections – there is a good chance that neither Ojha nor Kohli will get much game-time in the two series, which is why these selections also fly under the radar screen of the media. And I have nothing against Ojha and Kohli themselves – the former has been a consistent domestic performer, while the latter has showcased his talent at the under-19 level. It is what these selections signify in the larger scheme of things that worries me. Of course, that assumes that the selectors have a larger scheme of things in mind, which I doubt very much.

Ojha v Chawla

My problem is not with the selection of Ojha per se, but about the way in which we have gone about mishandling our spin bowling resources. The reality of the situation is as follows: the one indisputably world class spinner we have is Anil Kumble. He has already retired from one-dayers, and probably has a year or two of Test cricket left in him at best. Beyond him, the cupboard is remarkably bare. Harbhajan Singh will fill his shoes, but over the past decade he has disappointed more often than not. He manages to keep things quiet in one-dayers, and very occasionally turns in a strong Test performance. But having him lead the Test spin attack, while probably the best option we have, will be an impoverishment once Kumble retires. Indeed, I would rate Bhajji below a number of spinners in world cricket. He is certainly far inferior to Panesar, Vettori and the two Sri Lankans; and probably on par with Danish Kaneria, another underperformer who is capable of much more than he has delivered.

While young Indian seamers are coming through the ranks at the rate of knots, the same is not the case with our spinners. Nonetheless, there are four spinners who are good enough to play international cricket, and who have proved this, all of whom are better bets in my mind than Ojha, for both forms of the game. But consider the way our selectors have dealt with them over the past year.

First, it was Ramesh Powar and Piyush Chawla who were paired together in the one-dayers in England last year. Powar had come off a fine couple of seasons in the Ranji Trophy; Chawla had been identified as a long-term prospect and was being groomed. Both were spectacular successes. Indeed, it could be argued that they were virtually the only silver linings in an otherwise disappointing one-day series. (The only other bright spots were Dravid’s brilliant 60-ball 90 in Bristol, and Uthappa’s match-winning 47 at Edgbaston. Dravid was promptly dropped from the one-day scheme of things after this series, while Uthappa has done literally nothing of note since then). Powar, quite simply, was beautiful. His bowling harkened back to earlier days and the likes of Prasanna – classical loop and flight, the ability to hold the ball in the air, tempting the batsmen into big shots and indiscretions. England never really figured him out, and even if he didn’t get wickets he was very difficult to take for runs. Chawla, meanwhile, impressed, not just with his bowling (googly looked potent, the leg-break still needed work but had potential), but even more with his temperament. Hence, both were dropped, and Vengsarkar further said that Powar was dropped because he needed to “become a better bowler” (whatever that meant). So much for constructive criticism. This was clearly a huge blow to Powar’s confidence, and since then his bowling even for Mumbai has been ordinary. In one fell swoop, the selectors managed to destroy the confidence of the only off-spinner who can realistically give Bhajji a run for his money in India (and in my mind, he is a better off-spinner than Bhajji is).

Instead, Bhajji and Murali Kartik were brought in against the Aussies. The former was steady, while the latter was simply outstanding, bowling India to victory in the Mumbai ODI. The last time he had bowled India to victory was also in Mumbai, also against Australia, but in a Test, in 2004, also in a series that had otherwise been dominated by Australia. That last time, Kartik was rewarded with the axe, so the selectors, desiring consistency, axed him again. Clearly doing well against Australia, if you are Murali Kartik, is the surest ticket to being dropped. So now Kartik is again plying his trade in county cricket, where he is one of the most successful bowlers. He is without a doubt the best left-arm spinner in the country, and in my mind has the ability of a Panesar or a Vettori, though he never got the run to prove it. One could argue that he was unlucky to be bowling along with Kumble and Bhajji; but now with Kumble out of one-day cricket, shouldn’t the years of investment, of keeping him in the wings, now finally be realized by at least giving him a one-day spot?

One could argue that Powar has lost form; one could argue that Kartik has contended of late with his share of injuries (though at the moment he is fit). But neither argument can be made of Chawla, who was recalled at Kartik’s expense for the CB Series in Australia, and bowled beautifully there, in the lion’s den. He followed that up with a stellar performance in the IPL, proving to be Yuvraj Singh’s go-to man whenever a wicket was needed and invariably delivering. What was noticeable about Chawla now was his willingness to toss the ball in the air and buy his wickets, rather than simply contain, which tends to be Bhajji’s preferred option. His gutsy lower order batting and enthusiastic fielding also marked Chawla as someone to look out for as Kumble’s likely successor in Tests.

In addition to these three has been the quietly brilliant Amit Mishra. He was considered a Test prospect five years ago. He didn’t quite make the cut then, but has since then been one of the best performers on the domestic scene. Unlike Chawla, he is a big spinner of the ball, more in the Shane Warne mold than the Anil Kumble mold – so that one could even imagine a situation where Kumble and Mishra bowl in tandem and yet provide something different from each other. He was the most successful spinner in domestic cricket last year; had the touring South Africa A side in all sorts of knots; and was every bit as impressive as Chawla in the IPL, again as a wicket-taking bowler who wasn’t afraid to toss the ball up and spin it big. He drew accolades not just from his captain Sehwag, but also from the likes of Warne and McGrath, and certainly would be a worthy competitor to Chawla as Kumble’s successor.

All of these bowlers have achieved more and promise more than Ojha does. None of them, though, plays for the same state as selector Venkatapathy Raju did, and that’s the only reason I can imagine for Ojha leapfrogging over all the others. One can understand the selectors taking a judgment call between two untried spinners and picking Ojha over Mishra; one can’t understand how spinners who succeed are constantly dropped; how Bhajji is persisted with regardless of performance; and how Ojha suddenly comes into the fray to replace Chawla, who has absolutely no failures to justify his axing. Therefore, the selection of Ojha does not just speak to one individual decision, but speaks to a continuing pattern of arbitrariness when it has come to dealing with Indian spinners. This pattern has not just played out over the past year, but the past decade – Sunil Joshi and Sarandeep Singh are just two examples of quality spinners who were picked and discarded at will, two promising careers nipped in the bud without providing all they had to offer. Given the paucity of spin bowling talent in the country, such games are fraught with long-term danger.

Kohli v Badri

I have said enough in favor of Subramaniam Badrinath on this blog, so there is no point reiterating at great length the virtues of his technique, temperament, consistency, adaptability and brilliant fielding, or to remind readers of his stellar performances against South Africa A and recently in Australia. What I want to argue is that the selection of Virat Kohli suggests a deeper malaise. And that is that blazing under-19 performances are valued far more than substantial performances year after year on the domestic circuit, even though it has been proven time and again that people coming straight through the under-19 ranks quite often take a long time to adjust to the rigors of international cricket, if they do at all.

Other than Tendulkar, most promotions from under-19 to the big league have been moderate successes at best. The most successful other example really is Yuvraj Singh. But it took him years to achieve a consistency commensurate with his talent. He blazed onto the scene then dithered for a couple of years; had a good World Cup in 2003, then spent a couple more years struggling to get his one day average to 30. It was really only in 2005-06, a good six years after his debut, that he really found his feet as one of the most dangerous shorter-over players in world cricket, though since then there have been troughs again. And in all these years, it is not clear that he will ever be a good Test batsman. That is not because he doesn’t have the ability – but since being pitch-forked into the national side straight from under-19, he has hardly had the opportunity to play any 4- or 5-day cricket. He has constantly been the passenger on Indian Test tours, gets into the side by virtue of injury or because of one-day form, plays the occasional blazing innings, and sooner or later is found wanting.

And this is the success story. Of the two under-19s who entered the national scene with him, Mohammad Kaif has petered out after years of being persisted with; he may yet make a comeback, but now has any number of young guns to compete with. And Reetinder Singh Sodhi has disappeared without a trace into the recesses of the ICL after years of increasing mediocrity. Since then, Ajay Ratra was pulled out of under-19 and went nowhere. Parthiv Patel and Dinesh Karthik came out of under-19, but failed the first time around, and needed four and two years respectively of domestic cricket before they came back looking better players. Likewise Suresh Raina, who with all the talent in the world really has looked a complete batsman only after a couple of good years doing the hard yards for UP. Robin Uthappa has done little of note except for a couple of innings here and there; and Manoj Tiwary, another post-under-19 pick, looked completely at sea against Brett Lee in Australia and again in the IPL. Bowlers have done a little better transitioning straight from the under-19 ranks, with the likes of Ishant Sharma and Piyush Chawla promising much; and Rohit Sharma could be the exception to the long list of batting disappointments above (though he too struggled in the four-day game for Mumbai last season, which makes me think that if he actually did play a Test match for India now without some more domestic cricket behind him he will be found wanting). But a decade or more of experience has shown that batsmen coming straight into international cricket from the under-19 ranks are either found wanting or fail to fulfill their potential, and only manage to do so after a couple of years playing four-day cricket. Yet here is another under-19 lad being brought straight into the team, while the best 4-day cricketer in the country, Badri, continues to languish. Australia invariably selects batsmen who have matured in domestic cricket, so that when they get into the national side they already have the mental make-up to play Test cricket. In India, in spite of a relatively robust domestic structure, we consistently fail to learn this lesson.

Look even at the current Test line-up. If we consider our top 7 batsmen (with Dhoni as the wicket-keeper), then we find that, bar Tendulkar, all of them have come through the domestic ranks rather than the under-19 ranks. Sehwag was making runs for Delhi for two or three seasons before he played for India; Gambhir was like Badri, piling on the runs year after year, scoring for A teams all over the world, before he got a look in; Dravid, like Viru, got into the side on the backs of strong Ranji performances; Laxman was a titan on the domestic scene before he got a chance to play consistently for India. Only Ganguly was first selected in the one-day team when he was 18, and he was a complete flop. He then went back to domestic cricket for four years, and it was only then that he blazed onto the Test scene with that century on debut. Dhoni too was not part of the under-19 bandwagon, but was rather making runs for Jharkhand, and then made an impression on an A tour to Kenya and Zimbabwe in 2004.

So – we have seen over and over and over again that not only do players from the under-19 ranks fail to make it big in Tests without domestic experience, but that those with domestic experience and success are often well equipped to succeed at the highest level. And yet, Kohli ahead of Badri? After Uthappa ahead of Badri? Then Raina ahead of Badri? Then Tiwary ahead of Badri? What does Badri have to do to get into the team, stand on his head while batting? Bat with one arm tied behind his back? Bat without pads?

The bigger problem though is that selectors seem to think of Tendulkar as the model when they select a new batsman. The fact is, Tendulkar is inimitable. And this speaks not just to a problem with this selection committee, but with the Indian cricketing mindset, which values the possibility of superstardom over the proven fact of tried and true ability. Sure, Badri is no Tendulkar. But Michael Hussey is no Don Bradman, which hasn’t stopped him from being a Bradmanesque contributor to the Aussie line-up on finally getting his chance. And of course, the likes of Uthappa, Tiwary and Kohli are not even Badri.

One reason given for Kohli’s selection is that he was the second-highest scorer for India in the Emerging Players tournament in Australia. Setting aside the fact that much of that was on the basis of one innings of 120, this begs the question – why not then select the highest scorer for India in the Emerging Players tournament? That man happened to be Shikhar Dhawan, another remarkably organized prospect. He was a huge success in the same under-19 World Cup where Uthappa made his mark (if I recall correctly, Dhawan was the highest run-getter in that tournament). Since then, he has been a prolific scorer for Delhi. He is technically far more correct than either Uthappa or Kohli, and indeed looks like someone who has the technique to be a Test opener for India, not just a one-day player. But he showed his immense ability in the shorter version of the game as well in the IPL, where his intelligence in anchoring the Delhi batting was a crucial component of his team’s success. He is only 22, so even by the standards of Indian selectors, still a youngster. If he had been selected ahead of Badri, I would have had no qualms – I think he is someone who deserves to be in the selectors’ scheme of things. But Kohli?

These selections don’t get much press because these aren’t big names. The press invariably goes along with it, then does a token interview and profile of the newly selected player. But as John Wright pointed out, it’s these last selections around the edges that really make the difference between a team that always plays to potential and one that falls short. The importance of these selections is heightened by the fact that the big 4 and Kumble are all likely to exit the international scene fairly soon and fairly close to each other; the signs that their powers might be on the wane are already possibly being seen in Sri Lanka. At that point, the void will be huge, and a succession plan needs to be in place. It’s not clear that those who have been groomed for all these years, Yuvraj and Kaif, are good enough to fill those boots. And it is absolutely not clear that those who have been looked at over the past year – Rohit, Raina, Tiwary and now Kohli – have what it takes to succeed in Test cricket. (Indeed, of the four, only Rohit seems undoubtedly to have the technique for Tests, but hasn’t yet shown the temperament or patience to build long innings). Given this, the importance of nurturing the likes of Badri and Dhawan (the latter capable of batting at 3, even if Gambhir and Sehwag retain the openers’ slots) cannot be overstated. Similarly, the importance of consistently grooming a successor or two to Kumble cannot be overstated.

On both counts, the selectors’ recent decisions are misguided – and the consequences of their failures now could come to haunt us in a huge way in two years’ time. Come back and read this blog post then, and I will say I told you so.

Five considerations for the ODI team

2008-08-06T20:53:00.000-07:00

The selectors will meet this afternoon to select the ODI team for the Sri Lanka series and the Champions Trophy. I think that as with the Test side, there is a fairly settled look to the ODI side as well. So for me, the following are the only things the selectors need to think about, from the most obvious to the most tricky.

1. The obvious changes

The obvious changes will be necessitated by the returns of Sachin Tendulkar and Zaheer Khan. Yusuf Pathan would need to make way for the former, since he has done little to translate his T20 success into the 50-over format. And Manpreet Gony would obviously need to make way for the latter, again being the person with the least credentials of the seamers in the pack. Little question in my mind about either of these selections.

2. The Irfan question

I was shocked to read both on cricinfo and in the Indian newspapers that Irfan might be axed for the ODIs. I think his omission from the Tests is startling enough, especially since his replacement, Munaf Patel, has done absolutely nothing to merit selection. But to omit him from the one-dayers is even worse.

Purely on potential, Irfan provides the sort of balance to the side that no-one else in India does. He is, quite simply, the one genuine all-rounder in Indian cricket, someone from whom 10 overs can be expected, and who can confidently be sent in to bat at 7. The likes of Praveen Kumar and Piyush Chawla are really not no. 7 batsmen, so Irfan allows one the luxury of playing 5 frontline bowlers without skimping on the batting too much. But more than that, with the exception of 3 bad games in the Asia Cup, his bowling has been stellar all year. He was brilliant in the IPL, bowling far better than Zak, PK, Ishant or R.P., and consistently hitting the 140s. And let us not forget (since Indian selectorial memories are notoriously short) that it was he who turned in the Man-of-the-Match performance in our historic win at Perth. For him to basically be written off on the basis of three bad games is extremely unfair, especially when one considers the obsession with the likes of Harbhajan Singh, who has been retained in spite of consistent mediocrity. (His recent Test performance is an exception, but Bhajji always has a knack of doing just enough when the axe is hovering over his head). Irfan was treated badly during the Chappell era, and for some reason it looks like the double standards with respect to him are being persisted with. But he would absolutely be a certainty in my side. Apparently Dhoni supports him strongly,so hopefully he can insist on his inclusion.

3. Spin choices

As just mentioned, Bhajji has indeed done enough to hold on to his spot as the lead spinner, and anyway his credentials in ODIs are much stronger than in Tests. The question concerns his partner, and I would without a doubt pick Piyush Chawla ahead of Pragyan Ojha. It is not entirely clear to me what Ojha has done to merit inclusion, other than being a left-arm spinner from selector Venkatapathy Raju's home state. There is no question he is a good bowler, but really he is not yet in the same league as Murali Kartik -- if a left-arm spinner had to be selected, Kartik should have been the obvious choice. PC, on the other hand, looks the real deal. He has great potential, and even more than that, I am impressed by his temperament. He is as yet a little raw for Tests, but certainly looks like the man most likely to take over Anil Kumble's place when the latter retires. His useful lower-order batting is also an asset, so he is an automatic selection in my book. I personally wouldn't include Ojha.

4.Batting youngsters

The bulk of the batting is settled, in the form of Sehwag, Tendulkar, Gambhir, Dhoni and Yuvraj. Gambhir will have to drop to 3 to accommodate Sachin's return, but that's not a bad thing because Gambhir is a far better player of spin, so having him play a little later in the innings will be useful. Amongst the youngsters, Suresh Raina and Rohit Sharma have done enough to be retained, though on form in Pakistan it is Raina who would pip Rohit into the playing 11.

I do, however, think that Robin Uthappa must make way for Subramaniam Badrinath in the touring party for both series. I have been on a Badri kick for a while, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Technically, he is an infinitely superior batsman to Uthappa, and I think is good enough to be part of our immediate Test plans -- I don't think Uthappa can ever cut it as a Test batsman. Really, Uthappa has done very little over the past two years to justify his continued inclusion. There was the blazing 80-odd on debut,and then his match-winning 47 at no. 7 in England last year. But other than that, the best he has had to offer are bits-and-pieces 20s and 30s. He doesn't really look technically sound enough to bat up the order, which means that he can really only be imagined as a finisher. He is, basically, the Ajay Jadeja for the new millennium, and while there is utility in such players, there is no justification in them keeping out players of true calibre like Badri. In addition to all his achievements so far, Badri has now also impressed in the Emerging Players tournament in Australia. Anyone who can score heavily in Australia surely now finally deserves his break in the Indian team. He is 26, and if he isn't given his chance now, we risk losing a fine talent, one of the few people who can really fill the gaps left in the Test middle order once the Big 4 retire. And of course, he remains someone who could be a key player in our plans for the 2011 World Cup, capable of playing the pivotal middle-order role than Rahul Dravid played with such distinction over the past few years.

5. Leadership?

Dhoni, of course, should be back from his rest to lead the side, but I would suggest that Yuvraj be replaced by Sehwag as vice-captain. There is no question that Viru is the better cricketing brain of the two, and only his exclusion from the team on form prevented him from naturally succeeding Dravid as India captain. He is also sure of his place in both forms of the game, whereas Yuvi looks increasingly doubtful even as a reserve option for Tests. Yuvi has also had a pretty ordinary 2008 even in the formats he is comfortable in, ODIs and T20s. His immense ability still makes him an automatic selection in ODIs in my mind -- but the likes of Rohit and Badri will put pressure on him to perform at a higher level than he has done in the past few months if he wants to remain sure of his spot. Hence, it is time, in my mind, that Viru formally regained his place as part of the leadership team.

My team for Sri Lanka ODIs:

1. Virendra Sehwag (V)

2. Sachin Tendulkar

3. Gautam Gambhir

4. Mahendra Dhoni (C) (W)

5. Yuvraj Singh

6. Suresh Raina

7. Irfan Pathan

8. Piyush Chawla

9. Harbhajan Singh

10. Zaheer Khan

11. Ishant Sharma

Reserves:

12. Rohit Sharma

13. Subramaniam Badrinath

14. R.P. Singh

15. Praveen Kumar

(For the Champions Trophy: only teams of 14 allowed, so the same team, minus Praveen Kumar).

Not cricket

2008-07-21T11:04:00.000-07:00

It’s always a little tricky to mix cricket with politics. But tomorrow is the day of the trust vote in the Indian parliament. It is likely to be a petty and pathetic event with historic consequences. Since my interest in politics rivals that in cricket, and since the stakes of this are very high, I thought I would throw my two cents into the picture here.

First of all, my political affiliations, which might well put off some of those who agree with my cricket views. I am rabidly opposed to the BJP. I think far-right, fundamentalist parties that at the end of the day base their politics around xenophobia are dangerous anywhere in the world, and they have shown time and again to be dangerous to the Indian context. Regardless of whether one is a secularist who does not like the communalization of the polity; a socialist who wishes to have political priorities set for the common man rather than the elites; or a globalization supporter who wishes to create a stable climate for the growth of business or capital; the BJP’s myopic and hate-based politics is antithetical to those interests. There was a time a decade or so ago – before the BJP actually had much experience governing – when they could make the claim to be “the party of good governance”, and people believed them. After 6 years of BJP misrule at the centre, and any number of similar experiences in various state governments, even that claim cannot stand scrutiny. Another myth is that the BJP is not problematic when it practices a “soft” Hindutva, of the Vajpayee version. But so-called “soft” Hindutva has simply been a mask to legitimize virulent Hindutva, just as John McCain’s so-called “moderate” Republicanism is completely in sync with the most right-wing elements of American politics and society. At the end of the day, all fundamentalist parties – and both the BJP and the Republicans are examples of this – have at their core the belief that some people are inherently superior to others. And such a core belief is always one step away from violence, exclusionary politics, war and in extreme situations genocide. Regardless of my opinions of the nuclear deal, there is no way that I can support a situation that facilitates their return to power.

Then there is the Congress. They have hardly covered themselves in glory over the nuclear deal. Again, regardless of the merits of the deal per se – they have bungled the situation both from the perspective of policy and politics. Both sound policy and their own political interests would have been facilitated had they been open and transparent about the deal, had they actually made even a gesture of taking the nation into confidence, had they actually tried to argue the merits of the deal in a public forum. Instead, they have been secretive and intransigent; have gone on about the fact that the nuclear deal is in the nation’s interests without at any point indicating how; have dug their heels in the most unbecoming manner; and have further sullied their image by openly practicing in horse-trading in the lead up to the confidence vote. Even if the Congress was to win the confidence vote, their image would be seriously tarnished, and they will spend their last year in office kowtowing to the whims and fancies of Mulayam Singh Yadav and sundry others. Any legitimacy that they might have will be thrown out the window.

The first political mistake the Congress made was to not call a mid-term election a year ago, when their position was far more secure. Now, they have suffered a string of electoral defeats at the state level, they will be blamed for rising inflation (even if other structural factors are at play), and their credibility will be seriously tarnished regardless of the outcome of the confidence vote. Whether they survive another week or another year, they have created the ideal conditions of possibility for the BJP to form the next government.

The larger mistake of the Congress however was not political but policy, and that was their failure to adhere to the Common Minimum Programme that they drew up with their coalition partners when they came to power. The CMP was in fact a quite remarkable document, because it attempted to meld an imaginative global-oriented market agenda with policies that focused on human resource development. The mistake of both the Narasimha Rao government and the BJP government was that they both assumed that an embrace of the free market alone would trickle down to solve basic problems like education, health, electricity, water and other human resource issues, even though trickle down has never worked anywhere in the world over the last two centuries. And they both assumed that pretending that the majority of Indians simply don’t exist, and catering to the elite urban ruling class, would be sufficient to keep them in power – a point whose lie was dramatically demonstrated in the 2004 elections, when no amount of India Rising or India Shining nonsense could hide the fact that basic developmental issues had been neglected for a large majority of the Indian population, and those were the issues around which most Indians voted. Adhering to the CMP would have allowed a terrific opportunity to experiment with an embrace of the market (important for all sorts of reasons) with a serious attention to questions of human development. A focus on basic issues such as poverty alleviation would have made not just good policy, but also good politics, and could have allowed the Congress, over time, to wipe the BJP off the electoral map. Instead, the Congress played the same old dalal game that they have played for the last four decades – doing business with powerful and opportunistic elites abroad, and doing business with ruthless and opportunistic political interests at home. At the end of the day, dalal politics can only provide transient gains, because the other parties who are involved are going to look after their interests before they consider yours. In this way, the Congress has lost a historic opportunity to re-establish its hegemony as the legitimate ruling party of India. Regardless of one’s opinion of the nuclear deal, it is more than a tad pathetic that the matter of “principle” that Manmohan Singh has staked his government’s survival upon is honoring an agreement with George Bush.

However, none of this absolves the Left. Their “principled” opposition has been based in a hidebound, reactionary and reactive stance. If the Congress has done a poor job in explaining the benefits of the nuclear deal, the Left has made no effort whatsoever in explaining why it is bad for the nation. “Anti-imperialism” is a trite, jingoistic slogan; to say that every agreement that is made with the US is necessarily imperialist is simplistic. The BJP, the certain beneficiary of the Left’s high dudgeon, will not only rush to have nuclear agreements with the US, but will, unlike the Congress, try and use nuclear diplomacy towards an aggressive weapons program, as opposed to just civilian uses. But for me, the biggest irony is that the Left’s principled opposition to “imperialism” doesn’t seem to extend to its own backyard. After all, the Communists are the only party in the country to have embraced global capitalism so aggressively that they have inflicted violence and police brutality on villagers in order to dispossess them to construct Special Economic Zones, as they did in Nandigram. At that point, Leftist intellectuals / apologists assured us that Leftist violence was better than Rightist violence, because the Left at least defends secularism. And yet here is the Left engaged in games of political brinkmanship that are guaranteed to replace a secular government with the most odious of fundamentalist governments.

This is not the first time the Left has let the country down. Indeed, every time the Left has had an opportunity to take a historic stance in the national interest, it has failed. It opposed the Congress during the Quit India movement, effectively siding with the British Raj. It sided with Indira Gandhi during the Emergency instead of joining the democratic opposition to it. When it had a historic opportunity to lead a Third Front government in 1996, it decided against doing so, thereby dealing a severe blow to the long-term possibility of developing a viable Third Front. It attacked villagers in the state that it rules in order to protect the interests of capital. And now it is pulling the rug from under a secular government in ways that will most certainly benefit the BJP. When I was in college, Prakash Karat was for me the shining hope of Indian politics – articulate, principled, brave. He has now revealed himself to be an eighth-rate individual with absolutely no political intelligence.

The role that the Left is playing today is akin to the role that Ralph Nader played in facilitating Bush’s election win in 2000. But it is worse. In 2000, fair-minded people could argue that there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans because they had not experienced the extremes of Bush rule. In 2008, the Left ought to know the consequences of BJP rule, since we have experienced six years of it. The Left is acting like Nader in 2008. Imagine that Nader had the power this year to scuttle Obama’s chances of winning the election; imagine that he did so on a single issue in the full knowledge that on virtually every other issue, there were significant differences between the two candidates; imagine that whatever this single issue was happened to be something that Nader took the great moral high ground on, declaiming as if he was a saint and everyone else sinners; and imagine that on the side, he had also sent the police to kill a few people in rural Virginia so that the very sorts of policies he was voicing opposition to in one context could be upheld in another. And you have the Indian Left parties. They disgust me.

In terms of what will happen: In my opinion, the Congress is in a no-win situation regardless of the outcome of the vote. If the Congress loses the vote and there are elections, the BJP is bound to win, and might even come close to an absolute majority. If the Congress squeaks through, they will effectively be a lame-duck government for the next year, and will spend most of their time and energy attending to the whims and fancies of the Samajwadi Party. Their credibility will be so tarnished that it will just help the BJP in the coming months.

From the perspective of the Congress, the best outcome would be as follows: that they lose the confidence vote but, instead of elections, a government gets formed under Mayawati’s Prime Ministership. Regardless of one’s opinion of Mayawati – and I am certainly no fan of hers – one will have to concede that the possibility of a Dalit Prime Minister is as historic as the possibility of an African-American President in the US. There is however no possibility of Mayawati forming a government unless either the BJP or the Congress supports it, because the numbers don’t exist for the so-called Third Front to form a government on its own at this point. There is absolutely no hope of the BJP supporting a Mayawati government when an election is almost certain to bring them to power. So the only possibility for a Mayawati government would be for the Congress to give it outside support.

If the Congress loses the vote, I think it will be a stroke of political genius for it to support Mayawati from the outside rather than call elections. This will stymie the BJP; give the Congress time to regroup; and allow the Congress to build bridges with a politician who is likely to be a major player in the formation of governments after any future election. It will also allow the public to measure the performance of the Congress against that of its successor; there is a very good chance that the Congress will start looking rather good in comparison. But most of all, it will give the Left a kick where it hurts most. It will be impossible for the Left to be supporting the same government as the Congress after creating all these shenanigans; a Mayawati government supported by the Congress will be the ultimate testament to the Left’s political irrelevance. And that is a lesson they deserve.

Failing this, I cannot imagine any other outcome than five more years of BJP rule, either sooner or later. And that is a very dark thought indeed. One that the Communists can take pride in making possible. What a glorious legacy, Mr. Karat.

Team for Sri Lanka Tests

2008-07-04T17:43:00.000-07:00

Now that the utter boredom of two meaningless one-day series is coming to an end, we can get back to worthwhile business with the Test series in Sri Lanka. This will be an interesting series in many ways. In recent times, India has definitely looked the better of the two Test sides, but the Lankans have always been a handful at home, and India has tended to struggle there. Added to that is the fact that we will have some jaded players in our ranks, so this is definitely not a series to be taken lightly.

Of late, the core of the Indian Test team has looked settled, so there really isn’t too much to think about except around the edges. But those edges are crucial if India is to really go beyond being an aspirant to a really top Test team. The batting looks almost entirely settled, with the big 4 in the middle, Sehwag the certainty as one opener, and Dhoni a certainty behind the stumps. My only plea there as always is that Laxman be played at 3, but that as always is likely to be a plea that falls on deaf ears.

So the only batting question for the playing 11 really concerns Viru’s opening partner. I have been a huge fan of Wasim Jaffer’s, but the questions were being asked already in Australia, and I think the South Africans further raised doubts about his ability against the very best attacks. Jaffer will likely be good enough to get back amongst the runs against the Lankans, whose seam attack is useful but not frightening, especially if Lasith Malinga remains injured. But with the next Test series being the home series against the Aussies, I don’t know whether that is reassuring enough.

I think, therefore, that it is time to give Gautam Gambhir a chance at the highest level. The talent has always been there, but over the last year Gambhir has developed a steely temperament that has made him India’s Mr. Dependable in shorter forms of the game. Now, he deserves a proper run at the Test level, which is something he has never got so far. There used be a weakness around off-stump, and even more than that an impetuousness that would see him throw his wicket away too often. But now the technique is much tighter, and the impetuousness is gone. (If anything, it is Jaffer who has all too often thrown his wicket away after getting starts). Gambhir provides a right-left opening combination, and the value of his close friendship and understanding with Viru has already borne fruit in one-dayers and T20 games. Gambhir deserves the confidence of being selected for a few Tests running, and really should know that bar injury the opener’s spot is his for the series.

When it comes to bowling, I am assuming and hoping that both Zaheer and Sreesanth will be fit again. The certainties here are of course Zak, who without a doubt remains our Test spearhead when fit, and Kumble. I would personally go in with three seamers rather than two spinners, given how well the Lankans play spin. So the only question concerns Zak’s seam partners.

The four other seamers who must go on tour are Irfan, R.P. Singh, Sree and Ishant. There are lots of young seamers coming through the ranks in India now, but I think there is quite a gulf between these five and anyone else when it comes to being undoubtedly international class. The only other seamer I would consider unquestionably international class is Praveen Kumar, though at this point he looks more certainly a one-day bowler than a Test bowler. He would probably be my first reserve, especially if Zak or Sree fail to be fully fit.

So the question then is who gets to play in the starting 11. There isn’t too much to separate the four, because all of them are enormously talented, but all of them also have a capacity for great inconsistency. And all of them have been bowling a lot over the past few months. Irfan’s advantage is his batting, but the batting is already deep, and while Irfan has bowled beautifully in one-dayers, he is probably still not the Test bowler he was three years ago. Over the past year, R.P. has been generally magnificent, but he lost it completely against the South Africans and has been inconsistent since then. You never know which side of the bed Sree will get up from, though now we know that the secret to get him to focus on the job at hand is not the Paddy Upton Pep-Talk but the Harbhajan Singh Slap. And when he is good, he is very good. Ishant has looked every bit the Test bowler against Australia and South Africa, but looked flat in the IPL and since, suggesting a classic case of a fast bowler who hasn’t been well tended to. In other words, there is little separating these four in terms of ability; and betting on form with these four is a crap-shoot. So I would give first preference to Sree and Ishant simply because they provide the most variety and the best balanced seam attack – one right-armer who can hit the deck, one who can swing the ball, and a left-armer. Both R.P. and Irfan replicate Zak’s strengths, so unless one of them is undoubtedly in top form, as R.P. was in England last year, I would keep them in reserve.

Bhajji’s man-of-the-series performance against South Africa gets him in as reserve spinner. Even though many of those 19 wickets were expensive and not mission critical, he has managed yet again to do just enough to make dropping him a controversial decision. In any case, his back-up qualities as pugilist make him an invaluable part of Kirsten’s motivational team, and demonstrate hidden talents that could prove just as helpful with an R.P. or Ishant down the road as they have done with Sree in recent times.

The only question then concerns the two back-up batsmen. One of them ought to be an opener. Jaffer has strong claims to this spot, but I can’t help be tempted also by Dinesh Karthik. Jaffer is probably more of a specialist technically, but DK brings an aggression and a positive attitude that is utterly refreshing. He has been treated very badly over the past year, being dropped after being top-scorer in England, and not even getting a look-in in the CB Series in Australia. I personally think that is because Dhoni is threatened by him, and that it is politics rather than merit that is keeping him out, but that’s a topic of speculation for another time. What really clinches it for me, of course, is that DK provides a back-up wicket-keeping option, which means he is backing up not just Gambhir and Viru, but also Dhoni. Given the amount of cricket that Dhoni has played of late, having such a back-up for a three-Test series is important. DK is at least as good a keeper as Dhoni, and as capable a Test batsman as Dhoni is (which is why I think Dhoni is so threatened by him – had he not been one-day captain, then purely on ability and performance, there would have been little separating the two for the Test keeper’s spot, and DK’s ability to double as opener would have made Dhoni doubly vulnerable if we decided to play five front-line bowlers). Selections, however, cannot be made based on Dhoni’s insecurities, and have to also take the team’s interests into consideration. That is hard on Jaffer, but I would prefer DK in my team for his versatility and the balance he provides.

For the final spot, the selectors have consistently turned to Yuvraj Singh. But the man’s enigma continues. Is he a great Test batsman unable to break in to a star-studded line-up? Or is he a flat-track short-order bully who doesn’t really have what it takes to cut it in Tests? I personally do not have the definitive answer to that. What I can say is that if one went by merit rather than pecking order, my spot for the reserve middle-order batsman would be not Yuvraj but Subramaniam Badrinath.

Let me first make the case against Yuvraj before making the case for Badri. Yuvi was a sleep-walking disaster in Australia, which means that even if he – like Jaffer – if good enough to play Tests against most, he is not necessarily good enough to play Tests against the best. And if we keep Jaffer out with the thinking that we need to be building the best team to take on Australia in October, then the same standards that are applied to Jaffer should apply to Yuvi. But added to this is the fact that Yuvi’s form even in one-days and T20 in 2008 has been nothing to write home about, and those are his bread-and-butter formats. Had his form been unstoppable, then there would have been reason to persist with him in spite of doubts about his ability; but with mediocre form, I see no reason to do so. And then, even if he does get a game, he will have to handle Murali and Ajantha Mendis, and Yuvi’s weaknesses are definitely against quality spin. Sri Lanka arguably has the best spin bowling duo in the world in these two, and I really don’t see Yuvi cutting it against them.

Set against that is Badri, who has been the colossal run-getter in domestic cricket for the past three years. There is no doubting that he has the technique for Tests; he has an implacable temperament; he has performed against the best teams he has had an opportunity to play against, including South Africa A at the start of the season; he was brilliant in the chances he got in the IPL, even though Dhoni used him very, very badly; he is as electric a fielder as Yuvi. There is absolutely no justification for keeping him out of the Indian side for any longer, when those with far less performance backing them such as Robin Uthappa, Suresh Raina and Rohit Sharma have been given chances. (Of all of these youngsters, I think Badri without a doubt has the best game for Tests). He is 26, and, as Sidhaartha wrote to me during the IPL, he deserves his break this year if we aren’t to lose him like we have lost so many other talents by neglecting them. (Indeed, Sidhaartha, I tried responding to your comments and questions about him, but the mail bounced back, so this post is my only way of acknowledging them). If the selectors give Badri his due now, then I think he is good enough that his could turn out to be a Michael Hussey story. If they continue ignoring him, it could turn out to be an Ambati Rayudu story. Badri may not have as many ad endorsements as Yuvi, or dance as well as him, or trumpet his own abilities as loudly, but in my mind he is a far better selection for this tour at this point. With much of the rest of the side more or less selecting itself, the key point of interest for me is really whether the selectors will have the foresight and courage to include Badri.
My team:

Playing XI:

Gautam Gambhir
Virendra Sehwag
V.V.S. Laxman
Sachin Tendulkar
Rahul Dravid
Sourav Ganguly
Mahendra Dhoni (V) (W)
Anil Kumble ©
Zaheer Khan
S. Sreesanth
Ishant Sharma

Reserves:

Dinesh Karthik (W)
Subramaniam Badrinath
Irfan Pathan
R.P. Singh
Harbhajan Singh

[Back-up: Praveen Kumar in case Zaheer or Sreesanth unfit]