In the two ODIs in South Africa so far, M S Dhoni has changed two thirds of his pace attack, played two spinners in conditions in which the hosts played none. Of the six potential 10 over spells delivered by his pace bowlers, 4 failed to deliver their full quota. In conditions where the new ball swung, and two new balls were available, India's fast bowlers conceded 3 centuries in four innings to South Africa's openers.
Yet, M S Dhoni observed the following:
"The bowlers did well," MS Dhoni says. "They learnt from the last time, but the batsmen played too many shots. I think the shot selection was not right. The SA attack are very accurate and they keep bowling in the same areas and that's what makes them different. Overall, there was not much for the bowlers, not much seam or swing, so that's why I say they bowled well. The pitch was a nice one and the target was a decent one, and we didn't execute our plans with the bat."This is the perennial "but they came back well" argument. People who make this argument seem to think that when teams "come back well", the rules of cricket allow the runs they conceded bowling rubbish - all the long hops and leg stump half volleys and wides and no balls - to get written off. Clearly this doesn't happen. These runs stay in the score. Was it part of the plan to bowl half volleys, long hops and no balls at de Kock and Amla? Was it part of the plan to use Kohli and Raina when regular bowlers were available? Was it part of the plan for Ishant Sharma and Umesh Yadav to concede 0/83 in 13 overs between them?
If a side bowled 25 bad overs and 25 good overs out of 50, thats a total disaster as a bowling attack. MS Dhoni says there wasn't that much seam or swing, but try telling that to Dale Steyn. Actually, try telling that to Mohammad Shami. Umesh Yadav, for example, bowled an over in which he followed a rank half volley with a rank short ball at brisk medium pace. Both went for boundaries. Can you remember Steyn bowling a single half volley? Or Philander? Dhoni was forced to bowl his spinners, and Kohli and Raina to complete India's 50 overs. Why was that the case if the bowlers did well?
Line and Length. Control. Accuracy. These are elementary things for fast bowlers.
Now lets look at the batting. There is something delicious about saying that batsmen are flat track bullies. It is not just an attack on their ability with the bat, but something more. It is an attack on their manliness. On their core competence. Yet, these are batsmen who are trying to score six an overs against accurate bowling which can magically get the ball to swing when India's bowlers can't. To do so, batsmen have to take risks, because reasonably good bowlers (as opposed to India's mediocre ones) do not provide free hits on a regular basis. By definition this is extremely difficult.
It is a remarkable display of disingenuity or ignorance on the part of observers to equate the failure of the batsmen and the failure of the bowlers. To do so is to equate the unforced errors by ordinary bowlers to the forced errors by batsmen in conditions where the odds are decidedly against taking risks.
I don't care who bowls it, but a good length ball threatening a line on or around off stump, with a new ball which swings a little bit as new balls do (whether or not a ball swings has to do with a bowler's skill in large part - the position of the wrist, the position of the seam etc.), is difficult to hit for four. But more than that, in order to hit it for four, or even for runs against a well set field, a batsman has to risk dismissal. On wickets which are not slow or flat, the odds are against a batsman doing so successfully. And remember that a batsman risks dismissal every time he tries to hit a good ball for runs against a reasonably set field.
The Durban pitch was not a 280 pitch any more than the Jo'burg pitch was a 350 pitch.
India are the number 1 ODI side in the world. South Africa is the most difficult venue for them in ODI cricket. Of the three subcontinental teams, India have the worst record with the ball in England, South Africa and Australia over the last 5 years, and score 5 an over with the bat.
On flat wickets, the pressure of the run rate can be overcome by batsmen adept at taking risks against accurate bowling. This becomes exponentially more difficult on wickets which are not flat, which give batsmen less time to react to the ball.
India will never win in South Africa with their current bowling attack. They may win with their current batting line up. The weakness of a bowling attack cannot be overcome in conditions which are not flat. Cricket doesn't work that way.
Yet, I expect that people will not be able to look beyond 146 all out. They will ignore the fact that many of the wickets fell because batsmen couldn't ignore the run rate. Of course, one could argue that India's batsmen should have ignored the run rate. But then, the same people who blame the batting for being dismissed cheaply would have accused batsmen of playing for their averages.
India's choice of chasing runs under lights in South Africa has been an interesting one as well. With Steyn in their side, South Africa have never lost a day night ODI game when they've score more than 222. In two of the three games they lost, they were bowled out batting first. On the other hand, when South Africa have fielded first in day-night games with Steyn playing, they've won 2 out of 8 games. Batting first in day night games in South Africa is huge advantage, one which even Steyn is unable to overcome.
India have had been through two large defeats in South Africa. ought to face a lot of questions.
View the Original article
No comments:
Post a Comment