How many Tests have India won outside the subcontinent? Ever? I read somewhere that they are a less frequent occurance htan national elections. Bedi, Chandra and Venkat might have helped win a few more than normal, but I bet it wasn't an extraordinary amount.
A lot of those Tests won by the Indians were won with 3 spinners. However, with this 3-seamer plan, their performances away from home have been quite bad. They have rarely won matches away from home, with 3 seamers, despite helpful seaming conditions. Besides, these seamers can't use the helpful conditions well. Srinath and Prasad were quite effective in these conditions, but place them on flat pitches, in ODI's, they're easy targets. I expect quality bowlers to bowl well in both forms of the game. The Australians have a quality bowling attack and they do bowl well in both.
That was not an extraordinary amount, but it was still something. What great thing has this oace-obsessed Indian team done?
Australian pitches do not normally suit seamers, this 'Gabba one is a refreshing change. They suit batsmen, wristspinners and seam-up bowlers who can bowl alternatively (ie Vaas, Donald, Ambrose, the W's, etc.).
It's all very well saying "select on the opponents' weaknesses" but Harbhajan hasn't exactly been a constant menace. Australian batsmen are only weak against spin when the ball's turning, which it doesn't tend to away from The SCG and sometimes Adelaide Oval.
Sure, they're not weak against spin, but they're great batsmen against pace bowling, especially Indian. If he sticks to a proper line and length, it's enough. Who was the best bowler for the Indian team away from home, in WI, England and NZ? It was a spinner, though Zaheer got wickets in NZ, only due to the so-called cricket pitches there.
In New Zealand later that year, Zaheer Khan at least was pretty impressive? Harbhajan managed 4 or 5 plucky wickets that series.
That series also made great bowlers out of some medium-pace giants. Look where they are now. Besides, Harbhajan had a good average, but was underused, when he bowled better than the combination of Nehra and Agarkar and especially Yohannan. Nehra struggles to take wickets, everywhere. Agarkar can only take 2-4 wickets in a match. No doubt the Australian pitches don't suit seamers, but we are the only ones who know this. Everyone else wants to pack the team with seamers. Harbhajan may not be a constant menace, but he's still better than some of the seamers in this Indian team.
The reason the seamers "disappointed" in 2002, as I have tried to tell you several times, was because England is stereotyped as "seamer-friendly", and barely a blade of grass was seen in 2002.
Sunil Gavaskar said that the pitches then were prepared "out of fear" to suit their own batsmen. But after that disastrous batting of the Indians in Lord's, they would be inspired to make greener pitches. That one in Headingley was in favour of the seamers, but the seam quartet bowled rubbish.
No, it's not, but Agarkar still extracted enough play-and-misses. I'm the first one to say play-and-misses don't count for anything unless you get the edge eventually, but Agarkar did - he got three wickets in a Test innings. Which, for him, is unusual.
Plays-and-misses count for nothing, if followed by long-hops, short-wide deliveries or juicy half-volleys. Agarkar is famous for this. Already he lacks the power. If he does not have the consistency, he's not helping himself at all.
agarkar, is more of a batsman than a bowler and he is more suited to the odis. in tests, if he doesnt do well, he should be dropped. his competition is with nehra for the 2nd slot.
So much for the new super-member of AAAS. He's a specialist one-day bowler, but not the kind you'd call a strike bowler. Someone like Ian Harvey. Nehra's out of the picture. He doens't seem capable of taking wickets.
