All of these will come to nothing if India go on to lose the second test as well. There has not been enough discussion of the weaknesses in India's batting. Laxman and Raina failed in both innings. Sehwag and Gambhir did well enough in the second innings, but that needs to be carried on into the next test. SP made a point in his blog where he noted that Sehwag threw away his wicket in both innings. That is definitely not going to lead to a victory and in fact may result in a defeat. It's one thing to be out playing shots and it's another to be out playing a contrived shot.
Gambhir, in my opinion, was more disciplined of the two and deserved to make a big one. He got out to a good ball, but he too needs to be more watchful of the odd swinging deliveries. Dravid has been grinding it out without the assurance of the past where would overcome the bowling at some point in the innings and truly be the wall. He looks much more vulnerable now despite getting into the 30s and 40s. He is no longer the old reliable batsman who could be trusted to blunt the best of bowling attacks and smother them for Sachin and Laxman to milk.
Raina has some luxury of failing occasionally, but the manner in which he got out in the second innings was just awful. He just didn't seem to have the gumption to try to stick around and get a big one. He appeared to be trying his luck and that may work in T20s and ODIs, but doesn't in test cricket. If he plays the next test match he has the most work to do.
Add this to the bowling woes and India's best chance to win looks like it's being frittered away. South Africa are playing at full potential and if India is going to win, the only way they can is to play to their full potential. Right now it appears that there are too many loose ends.
The debate about first versus second is a good one. South Africa have won a series in India and India has won only one test. It is India that needs to prove it's number one. But on second thoughts, maybe the whole team thinks it's just a number.
6 comments:
India, and every team for that matter, needs to try and win every test. The rankings take care of themselves if you do that. If you focus on just doing enough to be number one you're only going to sell yourselves short and in the process make it easier for someone to catch up in the future.
Mahek - I think it's hard to win every test without the assets to dominate like the West Indies of the 80s or Aussies in the McGrath, Warne era. We know that even with W & W in their ranks and with Anwar, Inzy Pakistan didn't dominate for any length of time. A team like India without a dominating bowling attack can stay at the top by (A) playing to the best of its batting and bowling potential (B) good sense to tide over difficult sessions (C) eliminating mistakes and (D) adequate preparation. Much like (perhaps) Lendl was a top player for a long time without ever convincing anyone of his greatness.
what my point was and later affirmed by kirsten's latest statement that anybody who has got a start... got the measures of bowlers MUST not throw it away... coz it is very difficult for a new batsman to adjust straight away hence team can lose couple of wickets quickly at the fall of one...
whatever be the approach of game of individual player it must be calibrated to one goal... that whoever get the start must not throw it away for some crown pleasing shots...
once we will have total on board our bowling will acquire the required potency...
Vid, I don't see how any other team can do without the 4 things you mentioned. It's what's expected of professional sportspersons these days. I'm not saying we should win every match, I'm saying we should play to do so. Winning or not winning also depends on how the other side plays, but playing to win is something entirely dependent on your commitment to being the best you can be.
SP, the bowling shouldn't need a big total on the board in order to be potent. If it really comes down to that then let's just forget about being a great side. Sure having a lot of runs to play with helps, but that doesn't mean the bowlers can bowl rubbish when the batsmen have failed.
Agreed Mahek...it's more of a general theory. But in India's case, the reason they are number one is that they executed these four things very well over the last several years. They have really good batting and playing to potential in this case is scoring around 450 or so every innings they bat. The bowling is weak and hence discipline and no mistakes is critical instead of just being important. India has become number one and others are not because they are missing one or two of these elements.
I think us being #1 has more to do with our schedule over the last two years and the onus is on the side to be equally good in alien conditions.
Post a Comment