da casino： Thinking and planning can score a vital point or two over class andexperience
Partab Ramchand30-Jul-2002Thinking and planning can score a vital point or two over class andexperience. I felt this, more than anything else, was drummed home somany times during the first Test at Lord’s. That a player’s provenskill can come to nought against strategy and tactics employed toexploit the chink in his armour is the paramount lesson which theIndian team management would hopefully have learnt at the end of thegame.Surely, on present form, there was little to choose between India andEngland on the eve of the match, a fact underlined by their standingsin various rankings which have both the teams closely bunched togethersomewhere in the middle. And yet the difference in the end was 170runs.
© CricInfoWhat’s more, there was only one occasion when India seemed to be inthe game and that was late on the second day when Virender Sehwag wascutting loose. A score of 128 for one in reply to England’s 487 seemedto be a fitting reply and with India’s strong batting line-up upagainst a seemingly emaciated bowling attack – remember that DarrenGough, Andrew Caddick and Alex Tudor were not playing – a draw waswell on the cards with the popular bet being on whether India wouldoverhaul England’s total.Two blows in three overs saw India pushed back and thereafter, onlyone team was in the reckoning. With each passing hour, the gamedrifted more and more away from India and before long only the marginof their defeat and when that defeat would come about was beingdiscussed. The Indians came into the Test series like lions ridinghigh on their triumph in the NatWest series but they retreated likemeek, lost, clueless lambs. What a transformation!Nothing will convince me that on reputation and potential, the Indianbatting line-up is not stronger than England’s. Led by the world’sbest batsman, the line-up continues with two more players whocurrently average over 50 and three more whose average is 40 plus. Thesixth, a relative newcomer, has three half-centuries in six Tests.Between them, they have potential and class, skill and experience. Howcome then that India were dismissed twice for totals of 221 and 397 ona pitch that remained a Lord’s beauty till the end and on whichEngland scored 487 and 301 for six declared?That a No 8 batsman, going into the match with a career average ofbelow eight, could score an unbeaten century and put on a record 63-run last wicket partnership with a definite No 11 batsman is perhapsthe cruelest comment on the failure of the main Indian batsmen.It would be easy to say that the batting lacked discipline, technique,temperament and any other quality that one would care to name. Whilethis cannot be denied, it must be admitted that the England team, ledby their shrewd captain, had done their homework while there was notmuch thought process that went into the Indian approach.Having led his team on a tour of India a few months ago, Hussain hadobserved certain weaknesses in the Indian batsmen’s technique. InIndia itself he used Ashley Giles to bowl at or just outside the legstump when Sachin Tendulkar was batting. Controversial though thismethod was, it was within the rules and no one can say that it wasn’teffective.In English conditions, Hussain was in a much more advantageousposition to detect and then ruthlessly probe any technical faults.There was obviously a lot of thinking and planning in the bowlingchanges and in the field placings for each of the Indian batsmen. Theastute Hussain, along with coach Duncan Fletcher had obviously spent alot of time evolving the strategy and the tactics to be deployed andit must be said that they had the full backing of the bowlers. All ofthem bowled according to the set plan and they in turn received goodsupport from the fieldsmen.It was much the same with the bowling. The Englishmen had sorted outAshish Nehra, Anil Kumble and Ajit Agarkar and predictably had littlediscomfort in playing them. Zaheer Khan with his probing length anddirection, his handy pace and prodigious swing was played with duerespect as the batsmen were aware that runs could be scored freelyagainst the other bowlers.Under thecircumstance, the bowling, for long the team’s weak link, wasmastered and nothing underlines this better than the last threewickets increasing the score by 130 runs in the first innings. Thefact that only 16 wickets were taken while almost 800 runs were givenaway means that the bowling will continue to be a cause for worry.
© CricInfoI had made it clear in my previous column that India should play bothspinners. Seam bowling might be effective in the first half of theEnglish summer, as indeed proved by events both in 1986 and ten yearslater. But in the drier, second half, Indian spin has a better chanceto succeed than Indian pace. I am not saying Harbhajan Singh wouldhave altered the result of the game. But certainly playing him andKumble in tandem is a better tactic than fielding three seam bowlersand only one spinner.It is high time the Indian team management came up with a strategy tochart out the fall of the England batsmen and the manner in whichtheir bowlers should be played. This England team is by no means agreat one but they have been allowed to play as such because of thelack of a methodical approach from the Indians. England proved thevalue of systematic planning and the sooner the Indian think-tank comeup with a similar game plan, the better. Otherwise, England could wellbe in an unbeatable position midway through the series at Nottinghamtwo weeks from now.