Losing a Test series to England in England is not a disgrace. Capitulating the way India did, however, is. One statistic puts the entire sorry situation in perspective: England made 101 runs from 11.3 overs on the third day at the Oval for the loss of three wickets; India were bowled out for 94 in 29.2 overs on the same day on the same pitch.
The contrast between the joyful hitting of Joe Root and Stuart Broad and the dazed and confused batting of India’s top order could not have been starker.
In trying to explain their hammering, India captain MS Dhoni talked about the side’s inexperience and how the batsmen needed to apply themselves more and he would be right on both counts. But this India side was not set up in a way to give it the best chance to succeed in the place.
Preparation before the tour
England prepared for five Tests against India by playing two against Sri Lanka. It was a series England could have won 1-0 but ended up losing 0-1. It put huge pressure on their captain Alastair Cook, who was being told to step down by everyone with a laptop and an internet connection. But it was still Test cricket.
Broad celebrates Rahane's wicket on the final day. AP
India prepared for five Tests by playing the IPL for two months and then turning up for a couple of two-day practice matches where they could play their entire squad. There are many good things about the IPL - that the players are well paid is just one of them – but it will never be ideal preparation for a long Test series. It doesn’t work enough mental muscles.
You can argue that India were 1-0 up after two Tests, so the IPL could not be the problem. But that would be like saying a guy was leading a marathon after one-third of the race, so training to run 10,000 metres could not be the problem even though he ended up dead last.
On ESPNcricinfo, Mark Nicholas thinks India just play too many limited-overs matches for them to succeed in Tests:
My feeling is that the Indian players have either lost, or in some cases never knew, the rhythm and pattern of Test match cricket. India has spawned an affectation for the short-form of the game which allows for a set of skills and a level of concentration that are not commensurate with the necessities of Tests.
Selection of the best team and player management
One of the basic principles of management is putting the best people in the best positions to succeed for the group. India did not do that on this tour. The team selection seemed confusing from the start, when India picked Stuart Binny as their fifth bowler and then Dhoni chose not to bowl him. The argument was that the conditions did not suit him. Yet he wasn’t given the ball much at Lord’s in the next Test either, despite it being the greenest wicket anyone had seen in years.
He was then dropped for a batsman in the third Test, effectively replaced by a spinner for the fourth, and then was back for the final match at the Oval. It was a bizarre case of musical chairs that didn’t do India or Binny any favours.
All this while Ravindra Jadeja was struggling with bat and ball – his cameo at Lord’s aside – and yet he kept his place for four Tests before being dropped, ironically, for Binny.
Partly as a result of the way Binny was handled,Bhuvneshwar Kumar, India’s man of the series, was bowled into the ground and ran out out of steam half-way through the tour. When India need Kumar most on the bowler friendly wickets at Old Trafford and The Oval, Kumar had almost nothing left in the tank to give his team.
When Ashwin played, he batted behind both Jadeja and Binny, yet he has two Test hundreds and a career average of 38.86. Jadeja’s average is 21.41 and he has no Test hundreds to his name.
If a team’s thinking is muddled off the field, it is likely to be muddled on the field as well.
Meanwhile poor Gautam Gambhir was shoe-horned into the side for the final two Tests despite not having played any competitive cricket since he arrived in England (the warm-up matches don’t count). Practising against net bowlers does not prepare you to face James Anderson and Stuart Broad with the new ball. India needed Gambhir to succeed yet put him in a position that made it harder for him to do so.
To be fair, the cricket calendar is at fault here but the BCCI are part of creating that calendar and must take some of the blame for the situation.
Lack of discipline and accountability
Not only did India do almost nothing right over the last three Tests, at least publicly they refused to accept anything was wrong. Trevor Penney, India’s fielding coach, had clearly not been watching this series when he said India did not have a problem taking catches in the slips.
And after India batted for less than 90 overs over two innings at Old Trafford, Dhoni said he was happy with the team’s progress.
Rahul Dravid is one of the finest slip catchers in cricket history. He has the record for most catches by a non-wicketkeeper in Tests. He was engaged by the BCCI as a batting consultant for the first couple of Tests. Did nobody think to pick his brain when the slip fielders kept dropping catches? Did nobody think of asking him to give the team a masterclass?
Dravid left for India mid-way through the tour and Inda’s batsmen were the worse for it. They kept getting out in the same fashion, especially Cheteshwar Pujara and Virat Kohli. The bowlers were unable to bowl a consistent line or length and Ishant Sharma in particular had a problem with bowling no-balls. On commentary, Wasim Akram put the latter down to lazy practice. That implies a lack of commitment to discipline and developing a habit of doing things the right way.
No professional athlete can afford to take things casually in practice and then expect to turn it on in a match. It is why the great Sachin Tendulkar took practice very, very seriously. If it was good enough for Tendulkar, it should be good enough for the likes of Ishant.
Benjamin Franklin once said that by failing to prepare, you prepare to fail. That just about sums up India on this tour of England.
firstpost
No comments:
Post a Comment