No excuses for the poor performance. And there need be none. The batsmen need to be held guilty and accountable. But interestingly, our bowlers too were far from matching their South African counterparts. Where the SA bowlers could find that extra bit of bite and movement in the pitch even late in the 3rd day, the Indian bowlers could not.
I do believe that the rain late on the 2nd day had a role to play in the pitch responding well to the fast bowlers' efforts in the 3rd day. But then we had to suffer because of the hapless first innings batting performance.
As far as the pitch itself is concerned, while absolutely refusing to offer it up as an excuse for the abysmal performance of our team, I do believe that it was not what is to be called a 'sporting wicket'.
This wicket was one which would have aided the team bowling first greatly. In fact very significantly. It was still not a devilish wicket and neither was it even approaching the level of a green top. But it was a good, understanding surface for the bowlers. The bowlers would all have been proud of calling the surface their friend especially after their torrid battle with the Chepauk pitch. But once the initial sessions were seen through, there was not that additional help for the bowlers anymore.
Even in the Indian second innings, I suspect that the bowlers would not have got even the assistance that they ended up getting if there had not been any rain the previous day.
But these things are not in our hand. It is not a crime to have a different kind of pitch in India and expect our players to cope on it. In fact they have no excuse whatsoever for their failure.
But it is sheer folly to prepare a wicket which suits the visitors' game more than it does ours. The sooner we realize that the better it is. There is a school of thought that Australia, earlier this year prepared wickes that suited the visitors more than them and yet got away. The key word there is - got away. Lets take MCG. We saw what the media said and we saw how it turned out. That pitch was not a turner and nor did it aid India appreciably more than it did the Australians. In any case, if I was Australian I would have frowned upon the move to have relatively flatter tracks against the Indians. That would be weighted in favour of the Indians more than the Australians. The Australians had the mental wherewithal to overcome any perceived or present disadvantage and put one over the Indians. We did not exhibit any such quality in this game.
That, to me, is the long and short of it.
Shared on
Ahmedabad was a debacle. Nothing short of that.
This is demoralizing to the Indian team. Their itchiness towards home-grown grass has cost them a Test match. It is not that these batsmen are clueless against the moving ball or against top class bowling attacks. But almost every batsman was guilty of cardinal mistakes and of playing too many strokes when the situation did not demand them.
The 2nd innings made for better watching but it was not percentage cricket. It looked like the Indian batsmen knew that it was pointless and were simply being extra positive. Most of the time runs were being scored in boundaries. But the writing was always on the wall. There was only one team which was going to win after the 76 all out fold-up from India.
A team with so many proven performers and marquee talents - it did not look. Yes, the peerless Sachin Tendulkar was missing. But how long can the Indian batting rise and fall with Tendulkar. Seniors such as Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman needed to have shouldered the responsibility. Even the people in form such as Sehwag and Jaffer ought to have made themselves counted. But it did not happen. It was a collective failure - as it often happens with the Indian team.
This defeat is a body blow to the Indian psyche. But we have not competed in most of the overseas tour in recent times and tasted success by having really delicate psyches. And despite this defeat this is no squad of no-hopers. Yes, it has been a body blow. And I am hopeful that this is incitement enough to this team of stalwarts to come back with a telling performance at Kanpur. Whether Sachin Tendulkar is back or not, this is a team which is capable of trouncing the South Africans. But how often have we played according to capability? Not every often. In the past that extended only to our overseas tours. Recently we have been improving a lot on the overseas tour fronts. Have we regressed on home advantage? It remains to be seen.
One particular selection move from the Indian camp should not go unnoticed. Kumble's move to pick Irfan Pathan in place of a specialist batsman like Tendulkar. People intent at defending this move would point to Irfan Pathan's undefeated scores in this Test and the fact that he looked quite solid during his stay at the crease. But he was not picked to score those runs. Those runs, if you ask Kumble, would have been a bonus. Also those runs should be placed in perspective considering the position he walks in at. Taking no credit away from Pathan for his showing with the bat, more was expected of him with the ball. Somebody like a Yuvraj Singh might have added more ballast apart from much required mental stability in the Indian batting order. Having a specialist batsman at the other end may have even made attacking batsmen like Dhoni play a more subdued role at the other end. Speculating at may-have-beens is always risky. But all things considered, Pathan's no show with the ball proves that he did not succeed in what he was picked for. He was neither penetrative nor restrictive. In fact he was a shadow of the bowler he once was. And Yuvraj Singh might have been a much better pick in this match. More specificially Kumble seems to have taken a leaf out of Dhoni's book in trying to replace a batsman with a bowler - even an allrounder. But Dhoni did that in an ODI game. There is a lot of difference between the limited overs game and a 5 day Test match. But giving space to Kumble, this could be a genuine mistake and hopefully status quo would be restored in the next match with Tendulkar or another specialist batsman coming in in place of Pathan.
Albeit if Pathan is replaced, it would expose this strategy of picking him in place of a specialist bowler as an even more ill thought out strategy. A half baked plan as it were. Like I said, Kumble, though senior, is still new to this game of captaincy. And the odd error can still be overlooked. But time is running out for the legendary cricketer and he would be keen to make amends on this disappointing loss very soon.
A word or two about the pitch is called for. This pitch at Ahmedabad had consistent movement almost all through the match for the medium pacers. This movement though was most evident with the new ball and was the most dangerous in the first 20 odd overs of the match. The Indian batsmen though did not get to look beyond 20 overs in the first innings which in itself is a shame, a blight on the bright face of Indian Test cricket.
But the bigger question is whether such a pitch is called for in India. This pitch is by no means bad. But it does show the need to question certain adages about sporting wickets. Are wickets to be called sporting only when they have seam and swing movement and are helpful to seamers? Are turners simply to be called rank? Why are we so intent on negating home advantage? Do we want to make visitors feel as if they are playing away or as if they are playing at a home away from home?
Do we have more match changing bowlers bowling spin or do we have more of those examples in the pace department? Which, pray, is our strength? And what place does this pace-chauvinism have in the world of cricket? If we ourselves are to look down upon spinning tracks and describe those with choice words such as 'dustbowls' and 'rank turners', then what hope is there of India retaining its strong home advantage? And what hope, pray, for heterogeneity in world cricket? We may as well have these international teams playing at neutral venues and quit this home-away business then.
Shared on
Morne Morkel is replaced with Dale Steyn. And his first ball is delicately sliced all along the ground between point and 3rd man for yet another boundary. Brilliant batting sustained. To bat brilliantly is one thing. But to sustain it for such long periods is simply a mark of a complete package of supreme skill, tenacious temperament, voracious desire and ocean-deep concentration.
Go, Sehwag, go!
----------------------------- ---------------------------
Sehwag in the 290s dances down again to hapless Harris and launches the ball into orbit. That is a towering six which takes him to 297. He gets beaten attempting a cut the next ball - too close for comfort and then takes a single very intelligently. He is now on 298 and has the strike the next over.
Get ready Gentlemen and Ladies to congratulate this mammoth innings from a batsman at the peak of his powers!
----------------------------- ---------------------------
Sehwag's favourite whipping boy Ntini is brought on. Greame Smith does seem to have it in against Ntini
Sehwag slams a straight drive which looks to be going to the boundary but the mid on and mid off are straighter and that is restricted to a mere single. 299.
Dravid gets a wide one which he misses. But Boucher cannot collect cleanly and a bye is scampered through. Remember that we are talking about a batsman on 299.
Sehwag on strike - a fulltoss on his pads and is helped thorugh for another single.
There, ladies and gentlmen is the fastest 300 in the history of the game and the best knock that Chennai has seen.
And folks - there is a dearth of adjectives now to describe this effort from Virender Sehwag. Monumental, let me say and leave it at that.
Add Comments
Read More
