Okay, here is my review of the Test from India's point of view.
India played poorly throughout the second Test in Ahmedabad. India can take positives from the match though as a freak batting collapse, combined with some agressive fast bowling from South Africa can act as a catalyst for the BCCI to look at aspects of the Test game that had remained hidden amongst series wins against England and Pakistan and a fine showing against Australia.
Wasim Jaffer, for a long time now, has shown himself as somebody who is shady at best on a pitch less than a featherbed. Moreover, he has shown an irefutable weakness outside the off stump - providing nicks to any well pitched up ball within bat-width-range of the off stump. The BCCI have given much faith to the classy opening batsman, but it is clear that his deficiencies on sporting wickets will prove costly in the long term. Far be it from me to say that a single match failure is grounds for dismissal from the Test team; but combined with his awful showing in Australia, his part in the embarrasing 3 Day Defeat can be used as a feasible excuse to remove him from the side. India, more specifically Delhi, have two fine openers in Aakash Chopra and Gautam Gambhir who have both had impressive FC seasons. Both have also proved themselves in difficult conditions, by each smashing hundreds in seperate innings of the low scoring
2007/8 Ranji Trophy Final.
On the other end of the spectrum, Virender Sehwag also failed to impress in the Test match, but he lives in the certainty that after his triple century in Chennai - his spot in the team is safe. However, averaging just 45.64 in won Tests, compared to 71.27 in drawn fixtures - this shows a tendancy to score moreso on flat pitches than result orientated ones. Even more astonishingly, his infamous 309 in Multan in 2004 was the last of his two centuries in winning causes. Although certainly a shoe-in for a spot in the Test side for some time, the selectors should truly look at Sehwag's averages with far more scrutiny, the next time his Test place is under scrutiny - after some poor form on pitches which are less than one hundred percent flat.
Although the double failure of the middle order to convert starts was arguably the main cause of the loss, they have all shown themselves over their careers to be stalwarts all over the world, on green and brown pitches alike. None of the three middle order batsmen have shown nearly enough bad form over the past 12 months for their places to be under scrutiny and I also feel that the batting order that was used was the correct one.
However, the tactic of playing five bowlers was a flawed one. Although Irfan Pathan is an able number seven batsman, Anil Kumble does not have the correct technical prowess to occupy the number eight spot and so India should only look to play five bowlers in the event that they have two batsmen of all-rounder quality. Furthermore, when one of the bowlers - RP Singh, is a total liability in the field and with the ball, you must wonder if his spot would not have been better filled by a Test batsman. I was not as impressed with his showing in Australia as others as he was wayward and benefited from a large amount of swing due to the Kookabura ball and overhead conditions which are both alien to India and home in Australia. With a series average in Australia nearing 40, he did not even perform well in Australia - despite all his praise. India must look for traits such as sustained accuracy before selecting home pace bowlers on a whim.
Irfan Pathan's bowling displayed a lack of penetration and it is due to the BCCI's need to rush him back into the side without completing two sets of coaching. Although such a move was necessary to both win the World T20 and win in Perth - India are paying the price now for cutting short his sessions at the MRF Pace Foundation and with Wasim Akram - as he is not using his front arm (as Dennis Lillee has suggested) nor is he swinging the ball, which was surely Wasim Akram's priority with Pathan. Although the incompletion of sessions was a matter of circumstance, the BCCI should look to pushing Pathan to fix these problems in the early part of what has already been a long career for the young Barodan.
Sreesanth impressed in the Test, displaying heart and determination, but I feel that in his current state, he is not fit to be a long term Test prospect. He lacks the mental stamina to probe on the same spot for over after over, as should be expected of medium pacers like himself and would have to raise his stamina to superhuman levels, if he wishes to become a consistently fast bowler by sprinting in for spell after spell - the run up being his main source of pace. He changes actions far too often and seems adament to not persevere with the outswinger, which is, without a doubt, his best Test delivery.
India have been forced to play the three aforementioned seamers, due to injuries to Ishant Sharma (toe) and Zaheer Khan (ankle). As has been the history of Indian pacers, injuries claim bowlers for far too long and it is largely due to playing pace bowlers with niggles - forcing them into the injury phase. India should take a page from Australia's book when they rested Brett Lee in the CB Series - by resting pace bowlers in ODIs - without needing much of a reason. Closely knit ODIs are the perfect way to agrevate niggles and India should look to avoid this by rotating pacers - the introduction of Praveen Kumar and Piyush Chawla to the ODI setup should aid India to do this. India should also look to prehabilitation, by looking to alter actions which they feel are risky to the users of them. Zaheer Khan's leap to the wicket would always lead him in ankle (or knee/hip) troubles and so Venkatesh Prasad and other BCCI biomechanists should have looked to reduce the intensity of his action or even strap up his ankle on a permanent basis.
India's lack of feasible options has also been apparent due to the low-esteem in which the domestic game is held by selectors. Trundlers such as Joginder Sharma and Rajat Bhatia succeed to take wickets and India must look to improving the state of pitches in the domestic game to aid the faster bowlers who are more feasible at international level - or risk suffering a massive lack of bench strength, as in this tour. If the BCCI continue to refuse to pick bowlers who succeed in the 120kph area, they should look to drastically alter pitches to ensure that the military medium pacers are rendered useless whereas the faster bowlers can extract bounce and venom. Dilip Vengsarkar (head of selectors) was correct in his thinking that India should prepare harder pitches at domestic level in order to do this, whilst continuing to encourage spinners in the process.
Rant Over
