As regular readers will know, I differ from many fans of India's cricket team about the quality of its players. I hold that cricket is a bowler's game. The bowler gets to begin each play and hence can dictate the terms of the contest during each individual delivery and across deliveries in a spell. There are clearly reasonably solid boundaries that define what a good delivery is. There are also clear boundaries that define what a bad delivery is. But in cricket, bowlers decide the destiny of a contest. It is the rare batting genius, who, on his lucky day, can defy the terms of his contest. But such days are rare.
Unlike a lot of India's fans I hold that India's batsmen are not only supremely talented but are also skilfull. They have mastered the basics of batting to a very high level. The same cannot be said of India's bowlers. When an Indian batsman comes into the Test or ODI side these days, what we see first up is a reasonably polished article. More often than not, what we see is also an exceptionally talented article. On the other hand, when an Indian paceman comes on the scene, he is usually raw - an unfinished article, typically picked because he has one of the many basic ingredients required to become a Test quality fast bowler. Sometimes this ingredient is pace (Umesh Yadav, Varun Aaron, Munaf Patel, Ishant Sharma), sometimes it is the natural ability to swing the ball (Agarkar, Praveen Kumar, Debashish Mohanty, Sreesanth), or control (Bhuveneshwar Kumar). It is very rare for India to play a fast bowler who can combine these three basic attributes - pace, swing and control. Zaheer Khan acquired these late in his career in 2006.
If India were to pick batsman who was as good at batting when he came into the Indian side, as the bowlers they pick are good at bowling, India would be picking a batsman who has no backfoot game, or a batsman who doesn't know where their off stump is, or a batsman who can't score in front of the wicket against fast bowling. They do pick batsmen like these from time to time, but these batsmen struggle, and get dropped. The bowlers they pick typically don't, despite being just as raw.
The relative quality of India's batsmen and bowlers is evident in India's performances. Sadly, we live in an era of cricket commentary in which bowlers "come back well" (usually a reference to two or three good overs bowled after 7 or 8 bad ones). It betrays a misunderstanding of cricket, cause and effect, and probability all at once.
India also pick batsmen like Kohli and Pujara who not only possess the technical ability, but, by the time they take on lead roles in the batting order, have faced nearly every bowler in the world multiple times in real cricket matches (not 20 over games), and scored runs against them. Or they pick batsmen like Rohit Sharma and Ajinkya Rahane who possess both enormous talent, and also have a proven ability to make big scores.
Given this, I was not surprised by the way India's batsmen played Steyn, Morkel, Philander and co. What was great to see what that they had definite plans. Only one Indian batsman was outclassed on Day 1. By outclassed, I mean dragged away from his method into reacting to a delivery. Murali Vijay did well against Steyn and Philander moving forward decisively and showing impeccable judgment of his off stump. But Morkel's steep bounce was his undoing. It made him hesitant about moving forward as he had been against Steyn and Philander. The classic tall fast bowler's sucker ball - pitched up outside off, got Vijay lashing out while without a forward stride. Vijay did not cover the line of the ball, and was caught at the wicket.
Dhawan's was the worst dismissal of the day. He played not one, but four terrible shots. To choose to hook Dale Steyn bowling with the new ball on a fresh wicket with two men back for the shot, could easily be considered audacious. To do continue to do so even after you've been found to be late on previous ones, is foolhardy. It was a trap, and Dhawan walked right into it.
Pujara's was the most tragic dismissal of the day. India's number 3 batted with supreme caution, watching every ball closely, playing as late as possible, ignoring as much as possible. Virat Kohli tapped a ball from Imran Tahir into the leg side off the back foot and called for a single, only to change his mind. It was too late for Pujara thanks to some speedy fielding from Tahir.
Rohit Sharma played one of the few on-the-rise cover drives off the front foot on the day, and perished. It was a disappointing shot.
Ajinkya Rahane took some easy runs off South Africa's spinners and kept the fast men out adequately. He was trouble by Morkel's steepling bounce too, but managed to survive.
All in all, it was a reasonable day of batting. Given the batsmen, given the pitch and given the bowling, India will be disappointed that they are five down. They are better players than that. Had India bowled, South Africa would probably have ended the day at 300/3. India would have bowled about 20-25 overs of spin, and there would have been many more boundary bowls available to Amla and co. than there were to Kohli and co.
I was not surprised at all that Virat Kohli made runs. I was also not surprised to see how well Kohli and Pujara and Rahane and Vijay left the ball outside off stump. I did not doubt their ability to be disciplined. But what was wonderful to see was that having decided to ignore everything outside off stump, their judgment was as good as it was. That is a matter of skill as much as it is of discipline. Rohit Sharma and Shikhar Dhawan played disappointing shots. But then, they are also the two most unorthodox players in this line up.
325 to 350 is probably par on this pitch, which played like a classic new ball wicket on the first day. Without the run out, India would probably have reached that easily. It has been suggested that the pitch will play faster on Day 2 and 3.
India are in the match. As has invariably been the case with India's batsmen, they have made good runs.
View the Original article
No comments:
Post a Comment