So, Dravid opened. The scorecard shows that the experiment was a disaster. Everyone is now keen to slate Kumble and the management for playing Dravid in an unfamiliar position. I did, during a phone call yesterday. However, I think that the problem is a little more complex than just being about positions. As I touched upon in my previous post, and as Ian Chappell mentioned throughout, the problem lies with the combination.
Jaffer and Dravid will not work against the Aussies. Against say, South Africa, if India moves along at one run per over for the first twenty, it is almost guaranteed that life gets easier from there on. Not against the Aussies. They hunt as a pack and they keep at it for 90 overs a day. No letups. So, stonewalling, as a tactic, is out.
Dravid is not in form, but also, he is not getting any help from the stroke players in the side. Even now, Dravid is capable of batting through the day and making his share of runs. But if the scorecard isn't moving, he cannot do this. Specifically, he cannot do it against the Aussies. He is limited in that aspect. He needs a stroke player at the other end doing the necessary run scoring. This automatically puts the bowler under pressure, thus providing Dravid with ample opportunity to do some scoring himself, while being great enough to get through tough phases of play.
Jaffer is a player in the mould of Dravid and his position is at No.1. So, instead of grouping them together, let Jaffer stay on top. Yuvraj or Sehwag should play at No.2 and Laxman at No.3. The rest of the ordering is harder. Dravid at No.6 is a waste. He is not going to farm the strike while batting with the tailenders and take on a good attack. But Sachin and Sourav are the ones in form. Pushing either of them to No.6 is controversial. This is a tough problem. There is an answer though. It is called 'flexibility'.
If Jaffer perishes early, Dravid HAS to play above Sachin and Sourav. I know Sachin is very picky about No.4, but Kumble (after reading this post) needs to explain the idea to him and then make him follow directions. On the other hand, if Jaffer stays on, then Dravid can be played at No.6.
At Melbourne the pitch did not help us. The Aussie attack was suited to the pitch. Trouble is, no pitch is going to suit our bowlers more than theirs. On a helpful track, our attack can do some damage, which is what they did on the first day. But hypothetically, if the Aussie batsman faced the Aussie bowlers, they would not score 343 runs in 90 odd overs. They would have scored 250. Throw in the Aussie fielding unit, and the total gets reduced further. Now, 196 does not look too bad, does it? As I indicate, our batsman are still at fault, but not by as much as the scorecard shows. Anyone reading? If so, following?
If Sydney is conducive to strokeplay, we can do better with the bat. The Aussie attack is not about genius. They do not bowl magic deliveries like the Pakistani fast bowlers. What they are masters at, is in the art of choking runs and creating pressure. On a flat track, our batsman are good enough to overcome that challenge. Trouble is, our bowlers fall off the radar on such a track. Kumble apart, that is. So, either we bat first, bat big and put pressure on the Aussie batting lineup or we bat out a high scoring draw.
Perth - even if Munaf, Sreesanth, Zaheer, RP and Kumble were all available and in the form of their lives, the Aussies would score more than a seven batsman lineup of ours would do against Lee, Johnson, Clark and Tait. What I mean is, a hypothetical strongest Indian XII would lose to an Aussie XI at Perth. (Kumble, if you are still reading, I've set myself up perfectly. It is upto you to get the egg on my face. That would make us all happy, wouldn't it?)
Adelaide - too far away to speculate, but if we want to win there, just make sure Adelaide maestro Ajit Agarkar is available for selection!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You've assumed that Jaffer is in the Dravid mould, Yuvraj in the Sehwag mould and Laxman an attacking batsman. For a second let's accept these. You'll find a way out to be flexibile and yet bat T'kar at 4 all of the time. If Jaffer falls, Dravid's at 3 to complement the other attacking opener. T'kar comes at 4, followed by Gangs and Laxman. If on the other hand, Sehwag/Yuvraj is the first to fall, Laxman can use his flair at 3, followed by T'kar, Gangs and Dravid at 6.
So that can calm Sachin the irreplaceable!
However, I don't completely agree with your assumptions. Unfortunately these players aren't pre-programmed robots and this cricket isn't played on a computer. Yuvraj can be a dasher, but we've seen him struggle and graft on plenty of occasions, particularly in Test cricket. Laxman again is an enigma - when you expect him to struggle and be Dravid-esque, his strike rate will surprise you; when you think he'll free his arms when with the tail, he'll block and preserve his wicket. It should be really hard and unfair to send him out at 3 with a pre-meditated instruction on his approach. That may work in T-20, perhaps also in ODIs, but not in Test cricket.
I take your point about Dravid being unable to score freely, thus requiring us to bat probably Sehwag (as uniformally aggressive as Dravid is the opposite) along with Jaffer on top. Dravid has to lay anchor at 3 (hopefully some of the shine would have worn off the new ball making play slightly easier) and have the strokemakers (purely relative!) - T'kar, Lax and Gangs to follow at 4,5,6 - to play around him. That's where he's been the best. You'd much rather not play him than have him at 6 in my opinion. This order is time-tested, won us tests' and series' in the past and one that the players should adapt to quite easily. No room for experimentation against Australia I believe!
As for Perth, my suggestion would be to play 8 batsman plus Dhoni.. (WJ, Sehwag, RSD, SRT, Lax, Gangs, YS, Karthik, MSD) and have Pathan and Kumble as specialist bowlers. Gangs can open the bowling with IKP and Kumble can bowl spin/medium pace in tandem with T'kar/Yuvraj/Sehwag).. If that batting lineup can't hold out for a draw (and we need a draw if we want to win this series!) then at least we'll know we couldn't have done any better!..
Reg. A Agarkar.. gosh.. what do I say?! You had to corrupt a good article with that one line.. What was that saying about needing only a drop of poison in a tank of water for the latter to be untouchable?!
ps: Are you up to date with the cricket happening in the southern reaches of Africa? Didn't I once tell you.. Windies Forever?
Post a Comment