 |
 |
|
|
Who are the culprits? The batsmen or the bowlers?
Cricket is a game where just about anything is open to debate. As part
of a weekly feature, two points of view on a topic are presented. The
reader, as the "Third Umpire", has the opportunity to read the cases
presented by the prosecutor and the defense counsel and give his/her
decision. As India gears up for a punishing overseas schedule, in this
issue, we debate if the batsmen are responsible for the several debacles
on tour or are the bowlers the culprits.
The Offside
After the euphoria over India's series win against Australia had died
down, cricket fans started speculating whether this Indian team could
win a Test series abroad. The general perception was that India's
batting was at its strongest in a long while, with Laxman taking up
the #3 spot and Das & Ramesh forging a good opening partnership. A
middle-order comprising Laxman, Tendulkar, Ganguly & Dravid was as
awesome as you could get. With India set to tour Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka &
South Africa over the next six months, there were a lot of people who
firmly believed that the team had it in them to fare well at least in
Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka.
Strangely enough, people forget that this was pretty much the same
much vaunted batting line-up which came a cropper in Australia in
1999/00. There, the awesome foursome contributed 769 runs between
themselves at an average of 32 per innings. Tendulkar's performance
was far superior to the others while Laxman played one great innings
at Sydney. India's totals in the six innings were 285, 110, 238, 195,
150 & 261. Not a single total in excess of 300. On only one occasion
did India last more than 100 overs.
At the fag end of 1998, India folded up for 208 against an inspired
Simon Doull on a seaming wicket at Wellington, Azharuddin's brilliant
century notwithstanding. Earlier in the same year, on the tour to
Zimbabwe, chasing 235 for a rare Test victory overseas, India's strong
batting lineup was laid low by Neil Johnson & Henry Olonga. In 1997,
India came perilously close to winning against the West Indies, but
were unable to chase a meagre 120 and ended up losing by 38 runs.
Against South Africa a few months earlier, India had been bundled out
for 100 & 66 in the first Test at Durban.
These are performances in the last 4-5 years, in spite of many
"quality" players in the line-up. The Indian batting has so often
floundered abroad on bouncy wickets or seaming conditions. The bowlers
cannot expect to do much when they're defending totals of 200 or so.
You cannot draw, leave alone win, Test matches with those kind of
totals. It is therefore clear that the batsmen have to be
held responsible for India's woeful results abroad in the past.
The evidence:
The Onside
If the batsmen fail in alien conditions, there could be some excuses. But
what kind of reasons can be given when bowlers fail in helpful
conditions? Sometimes there might not be enough turn for the spinners
to exploit, but that doesn't give them the license to bowl poorly!
There is no need to emphasise the fact that fast bowlers failing to
succeed in helpful conditions is a clear indicator of lack of ability
and temperament.
In the first Test at Adelaide on India's tour of Australia, the hosts
were floundering at 52/4. They ended up with a total in excess of 400.
Australia's scores were 441, 239/8d, 405, 208/5d and 552/5d, clear
evidence of the lack of penetration of the Indian bowlers.
In New Zealand, while the batsmen failed in the first innings of the
second Test, the bowlers did well to have their opponents in trouble
at 208/7. But they were unable to knock out the tailenders, Daniel
Vettori and Dion Nash adding nearly 150 runs for the 8th wicket. In
the final Test at Hamilton, Nash paired up with Chris Cairns in a
similar partnership, denying India enough time to chase successfully.
During India's tour to South Africa in 1996/97, South Africa scored
over 500 runs in the second Test at Capetown. But what is forgotten is
the fact that they went from 299/6 & 382/7 to 529/7 declared. Lance
Klusener made a century in as many deliveries while Brian McMillan
also helped himself to a century. In the final Test at
Johannesburg, India were in sight of a superb win when South Africa
was struggling at 95/7 chasing over 350 for a win. No prizes for
guessing what happened. India let go the advantage with poor bowling
as Cullinan played a superb innings and in the company of Klusener,
bailed out South Africa.
India has bowled out the opposition twice in a test on a pitiful
four occasions out of the 18 tests since the 1996/97 tour to South
Africa. The bowling has thus been found wanting on quite a few occasions
on tour although their cause has not been helped by the pathetic fielding
efforts and some strange captaincy. Given the helpful conditions the seamers
get, it is quite incomprehensible why this happens so regularly. If they cannot
perform even when the going has been favourable, it is difficult not to infer
that the bowling has indeed been the prime cause for India's poor performance
overseas.
The evidence:
Archive |
|
 Results & Scores Indians won by 10 wickets Zimbabwe 'A' 103 (32.4 ov) Indians 108/0 (17.0 ov) [Scorecard] Tour Index Home Schedule News Scorecards Reports Statistics Audio Photographs Squads India Zimbabwe Zimbabwe 'A' CFX Academy Features Pru ICICI Top Performer Hercules Player of the fortnight Caught & Bowled Over Whatta shot Third Umpire Did U Know... CricInfo India Zimbabwe Official Sites Site Map Cricinfo Home |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
