Looking Back At Mumbai

We'd all hoped for much in Mumbai.  Seemingly, in one thrilling partnership, Gilchrist and Hayden took the match away from India.  Admittedly, at 99/5 in the Aussie first innings, things were fairly even, why, even a bit in India's favour.  To think though that it was just that one partnership that tilted the game Australia's way is a bit simplistic.  It was more the case that the two times India sort of looked like getting back into the game, their opponents most emphatically shut the door on them.  I'm not saying it  was like the proper bashing the West Indians got down under, most teams would be hard pressed to duplicate that.  But, it wasn't quite as close as we'd like to think either.

The real difference between the teams is that someone or more accurately, a pair of batsmen seems to take it upon themselves to resurrect a faltering innings in Australia's case. Whereas, in India's case, it is almost invariably left to poor Tendulkar. If it isn't Slater, it is Langer.  If it isn't Langer it's one of the Waughs or Ponting. And, generally, Gilichrist chips in.  It is in that envelope of strength that the Aussie batting performs.  There's a plan, a purpose to reach 350.  The end is always in mind.

We on the other hand get muddled in negativity at 55/4.  There seems to be no thought of getting to 300.  You get the feeling the next 50 runs even might be a major hurdle. Immediate survival seems to be the only objective.  The end is never there. It's not so much the difference in talent as that crucial, decisive edge in mental preparedness.  As Imran used to say about the West Indian teams of the '80s, you have got to make around 350 and then think of pressurising the opponent when they bat.  Break the 350 into smaller targets, say, a 200/3 if thinking of smaller targets helps. Cast your thoughts back to the beginning of the Indian first innings.  Das looked exceptionally good.  Ramesh was fairly indecisive at best.  He is not a good hooker, but instead of eliminating the shot all together, he wafts at a couple. There are so many other avenues of shotmaking available to him.  He can be an extremely elegant strokemaker as we all know. But, no he goes ahead and tries a few wafting hooks.  He was trying to make a statement of his own.  The 300 objective wasn't in visible proximity.  And, he almost predictably got out, albeit a bit unluckily.

Dravid got a pearler, almost the only genuinely good ball that Fleming produced in the whole match.  He has developed a bit of a habit where his back foot gets sort of stuck as he tries to work balls on offstump through the onside.  But, that ball would have got most batsmen.  Das played a loose drive.  But, it is early days for him and he looks a fast learner.  The best thing about Das is that his footwork is very decisive.  Tendulkar's innings was beyond comparison.  Technically, it was almost like we were being switched back three to four years, he'd become a bit loose the last few years. Absolutely brilliant.  Ganguly didn't look the part.  That look in the eye he has when he plays Pakistan wasn't there.  That searching forward push against Warne certainly didn't have 300 in mind.  He's a much better player of spin than that.

Laxman looked pretty good while he was there.  He needs to be given a decent run in the middle order, and he will do well.  Mongia showed a lot of guts.  Agarkar unfortunately didn't show any.  Again, he was fighting a battle of his own.   He has so much more ability with the bat.  It is painful watching him struggle facing up to Mark Waugh.  But, he wasn't keeping the team objective in mind.  Gavaskar and Chappell are right, play the Aussies like the mortals they are.

India bowled very well until that by now almost dreaded 99/5.  Bringing Tendulkar back into the attack when Gilchrist got in didn't make a whole lot of cricketing sense. Especially when Sanghvi looked to be hitting a nice rhythm.  Too many changes in bowling isn't the best way out in tests.  The field placing wasn't probably the best either.  There seemed to be too many gaps in the onside begging to be picked.  The fielding itself didn't suggest we were getting on top.  Badani seemed to be loping toward that swirling mishit.  Contrast that with Ponting's desperate headlong dive. This isn't meant to single out individuals, it was a definite lack of cohesive aggression.

Maybe, all it needs is a few good wins.  We mustn't forget how Allan Border's Aussies in the early to mid-80s almost continuously failed in such situations.  But it's got to start some place. The spin bowling in this case lacked serious experience.  That was fairly transparent in the way Harbhajan and Sanghvi folded under pressure.  With experience will come more variety.  Variety in flight was one thing missing in that Gilchrist-Hayden assault.  There was the need to slow down the game and collect yourself. Both Harbhajan and Sanghvi seemed to be in a rush to get on with it.  It was a matter of one more wicket, yet, we were behaving like a team on a two day leather hunt.  It was encouraging however that the real tail didn't add much after that long partnership.

Part of playing to a plan is to play the percentages.  Admittedly, Gilchrist's strokeplay was inherently fairly high risk.  But, he wasn't made to pay for it because in the main, we didn't have fielders in the right places and the spin bowling lacked variety in flight. This could have been compensated for however, if India had played the percentages better when batting.  Ramesh's strokes in both innings were fairly ordinary. Laxman's cut against the spin of Mark Waugh shouldn't have been played.  Notice how even a player of Tendulkar's greatness was cutting out the risks. Dravid of course at times takes things to extremes. The lack of taking singles in his case is worrisome.  Wearing down the bowling is one thing, simply refusing to take singles is another.  The bowling that morning was high quality but to a bowler of McGrath's incessant accuracy, it is vital to force him into thinking about varying his length.

India is up against one very good Aussie side, obviously.  Diffidence is sure to be exploited.  Remember that match in Nairobi?  We played good, attacking cricket.  More importantly, we played to a plan.  McGrath was attacked right at the start. Yuvraj didn't give an inch.  We held on to spectacular catches.  Zaheer wasn't afraid of bowling Steve Waugh a snorter.  Maybe, Wright needs to get hold of that cassette.

Krishna Kumar

Do you have comments on this article?

Home

This Week

Last Week