Arjun
Cricketer Of The Year
Indian view- part-timers threw it away
Ashish Nehra is in superb form in this tournament- 4 wickets at an average of 20, making it 15 wickets in his last 8 matches at 25 apiece. Zaheer Khan has been in decent form, with 3 wickets in two matches at a little over 21. Irfan Pathan has recovered some lost form and taken 4 wickets in three matches at a little over 27. Harbhajan has been in the wickets, with five so far, for a little over 23. With such a bowling attack (Balaji in for Zaheer, though), the Indians had the Lankans on the mat at 95 for 6, but yet again, the part-timers threw it away. In three matches in bowler-friendly Dambulla, they have given away 165 runs for a mere three wickets, despite bowling at least 8 overs a match. Compare this with the Lankans, who have played five bowlers in every match and only rely on the part-timers occasionally.
The single positive the Indians can take from this match is the continuing good form of Ashish Nehra. He bowled at a decent pace (a little over 130) and got a good line and length for a long time. He bowled wicket-taking deliveries and made the batsmen play. He exerted so much pressure on the batting side that Dravid, the attacking captain that he is, bowled him for ten overs at a stretch. Bowling to the frontline batsmen, he turned up with figures of two for 23, but rubbish bowling by Ganguly and Sehwag messed up the good work till then.
The Lankans may not pack their playing eleven with core specialist batsmen, but every player in the team, from one to eight, contributes runs that matter. Marvan ran himself out. Tharanga didn't last long. Nor did Sangakkara, Dilshan or Arnold. But one man- Mahela Jayawardene- himself out of form- took the initiative and played an intelligent match-winning innings of 94 not out to see them home. He was supported well by Upul Chandana, who scored a vital 45 and stayed unbeaten- which makes this leg-spinner more vital to his side. And makes the seven-batsman model of the Indian team look redundant.
What's the point in playing seven batsmen if they contribute less than 200 between them? Not infrequently, out of the seven batsmen in the team, two are duds. This time, it was newcomer Suresh Raina and sadly, the captain, Dravid. This silly strategy has often put the batsmen in a comfort zone, so that even if they fail, someone else will make up. They have passed on the buck for more than two years and have won just two major ODI tournaments, which were rather scratchy. Do those two batsmen who keep passing the buck deserve to be in the playing eleven? A lot less than Irfan Pathan and the tailenders, who have shown a lot more application than their more illustrious counterparts.
When Sanath was quizzed about his crucial 45* against the Indians in the opening match, he said that he was under pressure to perform, for his place in the side, and the match. He was the only real frontliner in his side, so he had to play responsibly. Maybe that's why a "weak, star-shorn" Lankan side wins more matches than a seven-strong Indian batting lineup. They don't rely on star power to see them home. They rely on hard contributions. It's time the Indians do the same.
Let's just imagine, out of the seven batsmen, one of them is benched. Would that not make it even more important for the rest of the batting side to score more runs? And why can't they? They have Ganguly, Dravid, Sehwag and Laxman in their ranks. All they need to do is take more singles. It may be beyond some of them (Ganguly's 51 in 110 deliveries shows he's still struggling for form), but it shouldn't be impossible, should it? Convert ten dots of every batsman's score into singles and see the change in the team score. Then add the combined performance of Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Irfan Pathan and you will get some long missing power play. They'll still score at least as much as they usually do, but an opening comes for the fifth bowler.
The real problem is not the lack of runs. It's the lack of wickets. It is the lack of continued penetration from the fifth bowler (or their excuse for one) that is hurting the team so much. Batsmen can just milk them around for singles and then smash the boundary-ball when it comes. None of these bit bowlers can get turn, bounce, pace or enough movement to get an extra wicket. They rely on luck rather than skill. That may be a good surprise option, but not for ten full overs. The absence of Anil Kumble, irrespective of his average in SL, is doing the team no good. They pick a swing-bowling all-rounder similar in style to their frontliners and whaat happens? He's benched! They have an option of recalling Kumble or playing a four-seam attack but the sooner they sort out this problem, the better. For the chances of Irfan Pathan becoming a world-class all-rounder are far greater than those of the seven core batsmen winning a tournament for India.
Ashish Nehra is in superb form in this tournament- 4 wickets at an average of 20, making it 15 wickets in his last 8 matches at 25 apiece. Zaheer Khan has been in decent form, with 3 wickets in two matches at a little over 21. Irfan Pathan has recovered some lost form and taken 4 wickets in three matches at a little over 27. Harbhajan has been in the wickets, with five so far, for a little over 23. With such a bowling attack (Balaji in for Zaheer, though), the Indians had the Lankans on the mat at 95 for 6, but yet again, the part-timers threw it away. In three matches in bowler-friendly Dambulla, they have given away 165 runs for a mere three wickets, despite bowling at least 8 overs a match. Compare this with the Lankans, who have played five bowlers in every match and only rely on the part-timers occasionally.
The single positive the Indians can take from this match is the continuing good form of Ashish Nehra. He bowled at a decent pace (a little over 130) and got a good line and length for a long time. He bowled wicket-taking deliveries and made the batsmen play. He exerted so much pressure on the batting side that Dravid, the attacking captain that he is, bowled him for ten overs at a stretch. Bowling to the frontline batsmen, he turned up with figures of two for 23, but rubbish bowling by Ganguly and Sehwag messed up the good work till then.
The Lankans may not pack their playing eleven with core specialist batsmen, but every player in the team, from one to eight, contributes runs that matter. Marvan ran himself out. Tharanga didn't last long. Nor did Sangakkara, Dilshan or Arnold. But one man- Mahela Jayawardene- himself out of form- took the initiative and played an intelligent match-winning innings of 94 not out to see them home. He was supported well by Upul Chandana, who scored a vital 45 and stayed unbeaten- which makes this leg-spinner more vital to his side. And makes the seven-batsman model of the Indian team look redundant.
What's the point in playing seven batsmen if they contribute less than 200 between them? Not infrequently, out of the seven batsmen in the team, two are duds. This time, it was newcomer Suresh Raina and sadly, the captain, Dravid. This silly strategy has often put the batsmen in a comfort zone, so that even if they fail, someone else will make up. They have passed on the buck for more than two years and have won just two major ODI tournaments, which were rather scratchy. Do those two batsmen who keep passing the buck deserve to be in the playing eleven? A lot less than Irfan Pathan and the tailenders, who have shown a lot more application than their more illustrious counterparts.
When Sanath was quizzed about his crucial 45* against the Indians in the opening match, he said that he was under pressure to perform, for his place in the side, and the match. He was the only real frontliner in his side, so he had to play responsibly. Maybe that's why a "weak, star-shorn" Lankan side wins more matches than a seven-strong Indian batting lineup. They don't rely on star power to see them home. They rely on hard contributions. It's time the Indians do the same.
Let's just imagine, out of the seven batsmen, one of them is benched. Would that not make it even more important for the rest of the batting side to score more runs? And why can't they? They have Ganguly, Dravid, Sehwag and Laxman in their ranks. All they need to do is take more singles. It may be beyond some of them (Ganguly's 51 in 110 deliveries shows he's still struggling for form), but it shouldn't be impossible, should it? Convert ten dots of every batsman's score into singles and see the change in the team score. Then add the combined performance of Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Irfan Pathan and you will get some long missing power play. They'll still score at least as much as they usually do, but an opening comes for the fifth bowler.
The real problem is not the lack of runs. It's the lack of wickets. It is the lack of continued penetration from the fifth bowler (or their excuse for one) that is hurting the team so much. Batsmen can just milk them around for singles and then smash the boundary-ball when it comes. None of these bit bowlers can get turn, bounce, pace or enough movement to get an extra wicket. They rely on luck rather than skill. That may be a good surprise option, but not for ten full overs. The absence of Anil Kumble, irrespective of his average in SL, is doing the team no good. They pick a swing-bowling all-rounder similar in style to their frontliners and whaat happens? He's benched! They have an option of recalling Kumble or playing a four-seam attack but the sooner they sort out this problem, the better. For the chances of Irfan Pathan becoming a world-class all-rounder are far greater than those of the seven core batsmen winning a tournament for India.
