Published: Mar 01, 2011, 10:47 AM (IST)
Edited: Jul 03, 2014, 10:45 AM (IST)
By Murali Venkatesan
Insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different result –Anonymous.
There will be many who will praise the India–England match as the ultimate thriller. While I admit that I was at the edge of my seat near the very end of the game, I was unsatisfied with the cricket played by India. The penultimate ball of the Indian innings perhaps best encapsulated Team India’s performance in the second half of the match. Munaf Patel and Zaheer Khan ran a non-existent second run, resulting in the run out of the latter. To rub salt in the wound, the first run they ran was short and was thus disallowed. Consequently India did not even bat through the allotted 50 overs – a position that was inconceivable after having been at 305 for three at the end of the 45th over and on a pitch with no demons. While there are many ifs and buts, the value of every run especially in a tied match can be hardly overstated.
While one has to acknowledge the good bowling at the death by Tim Bresnan, especially the yorkers that did Virat Kohli and Harbhajan Singh in, I felt that India fell short by about 20 runs because of a strategic mistake. When Gautam Gambhir fell in the 30th over, India were well placed at 180 for two. Instead of the in-form Kohli walking in at No 4, it was Yuvraj Singh who arrived at the crease. Kohli is recognized to be someone who scores fast, but he needs a few balls to settle in. When he walked in at No 7, after Yusuf Pathan, he was forced into an unfamiliar role and was out without a significant contribution as a specialist batsman. I am all for flexibility in the batting line-up to deal with game situations, but in this case I absolutely do not see the rationale. A Kohli at No 4, followed by Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Yuvraj, and Pathan would have been a better nod to the game situation given the form of the players.
When England batted, it was critical that India controlled the momentum in the first 10 overs. Instead of being innovative, India trotted out the standard fare. While Zaheer and Munaf bowled an odd good ball, England got off to a flyer, posting 77 runs in the first 10 overs. Zaheer should have opened with Yusuf as there was ample evidence, from the way Indian batsmen struggled to put away Michael Yardy during a passage of play when the Englishman speared the ball in at ~ 100Kph, using a wicket-to-wicket line. Further, Kevin Pietersen was standing well outside the crease to both Munaf and Zaheer and would have had to change his strategy with Yusuf operating with the new ball and Dhoni standing up. Yusuf came onto bowl in the 24th over with the field well spread out, bowled all of three overs and was not utilized in his capacity as an all-rounder. Alternatively, Pietersen has struggled in the recent past against left-arm spinners, so Yuvraj might have been the other option to open the attack.
Lastly, Dhoni had set fields that allowed easy singles once the first couple of Powerplays were done. England milked all the bowlers for 5-6 runs every over and with the odd boundary, the required run-rate was always well in control.
It was serendipity that saw England take the batting Powerplay, which forced India to adopt a more aggressive field placement. This, coupled with Zaheer’s inspired bowling, put India on the map again with the batting Powerplay yielding 25 runs and four wickets! Dhoni is a fantastic strategist. Hope he and the rest of the Indian think-tank come up with alternative plans when the opposition is simply milking the bowling with easy singles.
In the post-game interview, Dhoni correctly said that the team had some slow fielders and that he did not expect that to change before the next game. He added that the emphasis would be on improving the bowling front as the requisite talent was there. I would beg to differ on the latter part. Just like fielding, we have what we have and I do not expect dramatic changes over the next couple of games. We are a fairly weak bowling unit in subcontinental conditions, especially in the first two powerplays. Also, Zaheer is more potent with the older ball, in his second and third spells.
We need to recognize this and open with a spinner operating from one end. This moves the responsibility to the spinners, who have conditions favoring them.
I also want to make a request to my fellow fans: Folks, it is easy to support a team which is on a roll. However, the team needs our support the most when things are not going well. Spectators leaving in droves when England was at 280 for two is hardly inspiring for Team India. So let us be better than being fair weather fans in future games.
With all the nitpicking in this article, I do not want to skip over Sachin Tendulkar’s brilliant 120, Yuvraj’s quasi- return to form with 58, or the magnificent 158 by Andrew Strauss. I particularly liked the way Tendulkar took Graeme Swann out of the equation in a manner that reminded me of the way he took on Shane Warne in India many years ago. Swann is an aggressive bowler – I am sure the pasting he received at Tendulkar’s hand will have dented his confidence and should assist India if there are future match-ups with England in the course of the World Cup.
Life is good!
(Murali is a resident of the San Francisco Bay Area. When he gets time off from his cricketing duties, whether it be playing or watching cricket, he attends to his duties as a husband, father, and engineering new solar technology solutions)
