Tag Archives: test match

Cricketing Depth Matters

Posted on by

Recent international cricket results have something to tell us. How Pakistan beat Sri Lanka despite a team that has been decimated by scandal and a crazy Board. How Zimbabwe still manages to be competitive and just pulled off a miraculous win against New Zealand. How West Indies is about to win a Test in Bangladesh. Why Australia is still winning most of the time.

A national team is not just made up of talented players. Yes, you can have enormously talented players like Tendulkar and Warne, but a team is more than that. It is the sum of all the cricketing effort put together by the entire nation. Every player in the team is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to cricketing talent in that country. And that is determined by the sheer quantity of people playing and how much quality effort they are putting in. And how the leadership at different levels are doing and what institutions are being put into place.

When you consider that, it is no surprise that Pakistan and Zimbabwe are still performing. Despite their exile from Test cricket, Zimbabwe still had a decent cricket base. Cricket is essentially a national sport in Pakistan. And there are potentially hundreds of fast bowlers who will replace the ones who fall off the team.

Countries like England and Australia already have the advantages of developed nations, where they have good institutions for cricketers to develop their skills over years. With central contracts, there is also less financial worry so that the players do not try some act that spoils their long-term skills and future. Cricket is a tough sport, and these advantages will continue to ensure a big divide between the top nations and the rest of the field.

 

Manufactured Controversy About Sachin Tendulkar’s Batting Position

Posted on by

So the latest controversy doing the rounds is why Sachin Tendulkar cannot open the batting when one of the openers is not doing well. Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman are flexible about their batting positions. Rahul opening and Laxman at No.3. Is Tendulkar such a big shot that he cannot change his position?

In this opinion, this controversy is unadulterated stupidity and perhaps even cynical mischief as it tries to create dissension within the Indian team. Let us look at the facts why this is a needless distraction:

Dravid has opened 23 times in 17 Tests and has made 4 centuries and 1 fifty. Obviously he has come in several times when one of the openers has gone without scoring (which was twice in the last Test). Laxman has opened 25 times in 16 Tests with one century (the 167 against Australia in Sydney). He has also played at #3 position in 23 Tests with 4 centuries, including that 281 against Australia in Kolkata. In contrast, Sachin has only played above #4 in one Test making 15 runs.

So who has more experience playing as opener? And who has more experience at #3? Should we or shouldn’t be asking people to use their experience at a particular spot instead of experimenting when India is staring at a 4-0 loss? Also question for people – if Tendulkar does not bat at #4, then who will take that position? Isn’t he the person with the most experience at that spot?

Also in this series, this is what happened when Dravid and Laxman batted at #2 and #3:

  • 1st Test, 2nd innings: Dravid (36), Laxman (56) and a partnership of 75 runs.
  • 2nd Test, 1st innings: Dravid (117), Laxman (54). Partnership 93 runs
  • 2nd Test, 2nd innings: Dravid (6), Laxman (4). No partnership
  • 3rd Test: – usual batting positions – India lose by innings and 242 runs
  • 4th Test, 1st innings: Dravid (146*), Laxman (2). Partnership 5 runs
  • 4th Test, 2nd innings: Dravid (13), Laxman (24). No partnership

In 5 tries, Dravid and Laxman have made a good score twice, made a start once and failed twice. Not a bad record. In fact, if we just take the first two times they went up the order, they were very successful. Why wouldn’t the Indian team continue with that? Why experiment?

More on India’s Bowling (and Batting)

Posted on by

Following up on my previous post about India’s supposed problem with poor fast bowlers, we should examine that with India’s record in various countries from Jan 1, 2001 to the recently concluded WI series:

  • At home: Won 24, Lost 7 (50 matches)
  • In Bang: 5-0 (6)
  • In Zimb: 3-1 (4)
  • In Eng: 2-1 (7)
  • In WI: 3-2 (11)
  • In Pak: 2-2 (6)
  • In Aus: 2-3 (8)
  • In SL: 3-5 (9)
  • In NZ: 1-2 (5)
  • In SA: 2-4 (8)

The items marked in Red are countries where India lost more than they won. So let us look at each of those lost matches. We could also analyze the drawn matches, but those are matches where their bowlers were as ineffective as us, or luck/weather saved one of the teams.

  • v Aus
    • India 366, Aus 558, Ind 286, Aus 97/1: Average batting, terrible bowling
    • Aus 343, India 196, Aus 351, India 161: Terrible batting, average bowling
    • Aus 463, India 532, Aus 401, India 210: Good to poor batting, poor bowling
  • v SL:
    • India 187, SL 362, India 180, SL 6/0: Poor batting, average bowling
    • India 234, SL 610, India 299: Poor batting, terrible bowling
    • SL 600, India 223, India 138: Terrible batting, terrible bowling
    • India 249, SL 396, India 268, SL 123/2: Poor batting, poor bowling
    • SL 520, India 276, India 338, SL 96/0: Poor batting, terrible bowling
  • v NZ
    • India 161, NZ 247, India 121, NZ 36*: Terrible batting, good bowling
    • India 99, NZ 94, India 154, NZ 160/6: Terrible batting, good bowling
  • v SA:
    • India 379, SA 563, India 237, SA 1/54: Poor batting, terrible bowling
    • SA 328, India 240, SA 265, India 179: Poor batting, average bowling
    • India 414, SA 373, India 169, SA 211/5: Good to poor batting, poor bowling
    • India 136, SA 620, India 459: Terrible to good batting, terrible bowling

As you can see, many of India’s defeats (12 of the 14) have come about when India’s batting lineup has not performed to its potential. I am using a baseline of 250, but you can also see many scores below 200. In terms of bowling, there have been fewer matches (6) where the bowlers conceded a mammoth total (500+) and at least a couple where they have done pretty well. Bringing total of 400+ conceded only adds 1 more Test to that total.

In case the moral of the story is not clear: India has more of a batting problem overseas than it has a bowling problem.

 

India Does Not Have a Fast Bowling Problem

Posted on by

Karthikeya Date at a Cricketing View has a couple of posts bemoaning the lack of fast bowlers in the Indian lineup and attributes it as the reason for the recent England series loss. I am not convinced for a variety of reasons, especially with statements like this that apparently seems to be a problem because of the lack of fast bowlers:

India did not win a Test Match outside the sub-continent between 1986 and 2001.

There are 3 main lines of arguments against this. First is anecdotal: In the past, when you have read about India’s struggles in Tests abroad, what was the first criticism you have heard? As far as I can remember, the primary analysis has usually been “Indian batsmen do not know how to handle fast bowling because they are not used to pitches that favor bowlers“. It has rarely been “Indian fast bowlers were ineffective“.

The second is what if you use the argument for some country, say Australia playing in India. Since 1970, Australia has won a total of 4 Tests and lost 12 Tests out of 26 Tests in India. That is a staggeringly bad record. What do people advocate for Australia? Do they say that Australia needs to bring better fast bowlers? Or they should have better spinners (better than Shane Warne with an average of 43 per wicket)? No, it is taken for granted that Indians are very good at batting on their pitches and they are really good at handling spin. The problem has been Australians unable to cope with the subcontinent.

The last is looking at the record between 1986 and 2001. India actually only played 38 Tests in these 15 years outside the subcontinent – 9 against the West Indies, 8 vs Australia, 7 vs South Africa, 6 vs NZ, 6 v England, and 2 vs Zimbabwe. We lost 18 Tests out of 38, but 7 came in Australia, 3 early in the period against a still strong West Indies and 3 against South Africa. We lost twice against NZ and England.

In general, that points to the relative strengths of the teams. Beating Australia in Australia was not easy and so it turned out. During the same period, Australia was also decimating other teams and running up record consecutive Test wins. One exception also shows the rule. This was the infamous 38-run loss to the West Indies, India being bundled out for 81 while chasing 120 runs.

What does this have to do with fast bowling? One point is that it is easier to explain India’s lack of success by simply looking at the overall team strength and also factor in the usual home advantage. A 1-0 loss in 4 Tests against a newly admitted South Africa in 1992 and a 2-0 in 3 Tests against a more experienced side is fully explained by that theory. Conversely against a West Indies that had the opposite trajectory in form, we have the 3-0 in 4 Tests in 1989, but only 1-0 in 5 Tests in 1997. And solitary losses to England in two 3-Test series.

But there is another factor also. If you look at some Tests in detail, you will find that surprisingly the bowling was a small factor in India’s fortunes. The 1991/92 Australia series is a great example. India went to Australia with the “strongest batting line up ever”. But what ended up happening is that India crossed 300 only twice in 5 Tests and were bowled out for scores such as 141 and 156. The batting average for the series was 23. And that does not even show the true picture because several times, the lower order especially Kapil Dev boosted the scores. The Indian bowling was not that great, but they did not allow Australia to cross 350 in any of their first innings. If the batting had been a little better, perhaps the final scoreline may have been different. The batting in the next away series against Australia was no better, with India thrice bowled out for less than 200.

It is taken as a fact that better batting does not win matches and you need 20 wickets to win matches and therefore you need bowlers to perform. But it is also true that bowlers need a total to defend as they try to buy wickets with runs, enticing batsmen to take risks. India’s poor batting abroad has often put bowlers in a bad position. So the blame should not solely fall on the bowlers.

Indian Fans Should Stop Whining About English Hyperbole

Posted on by

Dileep Premachandran writes:

Tuesday’s papers also had me wondering if The Invincibles were back in town. On the back of one Test, in a series of four, England are apparently the best team in the world. [...] England may yet win this series 4-0. They may yet dominate the Test arena for a decade. But till that happens, a sense of perspective might be useful. Not to mention a little respect.

First, there were all the excuses why India could not win the first Test. Now, apparently England fans and media are not supposed to celebrate their win over the #1 ranked Test team because … well, I don’t know because India deserves “a little respect“? It is not okay for England to start suggesting that they could win the series by a 2-Test margin (when they have already won one match) and so displace India at the top of the Test rankings? Because once upon a time, South Africa blew away India by an innings and their captain had the temerity to suggest that they could win the next Test and the series, even though India had never won a Test series in South Africa.

I wonder what has happened to the Indian cricket fan. I don’t recall this kind of thin skin phenomenon in the past. We used to be so pessimistic about our chances particularly in Tests abroad. But now, as we became #1, we suddenly believe that our team can achieve anything. When it doesn’t happen like in the first Test, all kinds of emotions come up. It is like the stages of grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Once we blew past the excuses, we moved to Denial to Anger. So what will it be during the Bargaining stage?

The Test #1 ranking actually obscures the fact that India still has many milestones to cover. Basically, India’s rise to the top has been partly due to Australia’s decline – their losses against South Africa and England played a big part. India still has the following to achieve:

  • A Test series victory in Australia
  • A Test series victory in South Africa
  • It has been a long time since India won a Test series in Sri Lanka
  • Also, a long time since India whitewashed someone in a Test series of 3 Tests or more.

Respect is earned. Not asked for. England has the momentum. India has to grasp her chances, gain the upper hand and earn the respect.

Not So Great Excuses from India

Posted on by

After India’s loss to England, the common refrain on Twitter and many Indian cricket blogs was that this was no big deal because:

  • India doesn’t usually start strong, especially with only one short tour match.
  • Zaheer Khan broke down in the first innings and couldn’t bowl much.
  • Sehwag was missing.
  • Sachin had a viral infection.
  • Gambhir was hit in the elbow.
  • India could have drawn it if they had stuck around for a few more overs.

Some of this is valid, but here are some counter-points:

  • A team striving to keep the No. 1 position should plan ahead to make sure that it has key players in top form or have a Plan B with good replacement players.
  • Much of the first day was lost to rain. Only about 50 overs was played on the first day. So technically India lost in four and a half days.
  • All the batsmen (Gambhir definitely, Sachin perhaps) were fit for the first innings. Just about managing to avoid the follow-on is not what one would expect from such a top batting team.
  • In the last 3 matches that India won abroad, Sehwag did not have a great role. He was missing in the West Indies match. He did not score much against South Africa (13 and 11). He did score a century in the first innings against Sri Lanka, but made a duck when India was chasing 257 to win.
  • Ishant didn’t continue bowling after lunch when India had an upper hand. His excuse: he was a “human with a human body”. He also batted below Zaheer.

I am confident that India will play stronger cricket in the next few matches. But I think the bloggers mocking England should remember that England is not a pushover. They beat Australia 3-1 in Australia with 3 innings victories. India hasn’t managed more than a series draw in like forever. They also won against Sri Lanka at home recently and could have made it more than 1-0. They have a strong batting order and their bowling, while weak at times, can also be very lethal at other times.

Make Them Play 90 Overs on the Last Day

Posted on by

This tweet from Homer says it for all India fans:

You get paid to play 450 overs/6 hrs a day for 5 days.. Why not play, unless u are losing? Why take your bat and ball and go home?

I have always found this “mandatory overs” and “optional 15 overs” stuff on the last day of a Test extremely weird. I mean, there are cases where it is pretty much impossible for any result other than a draw, but most of those situations are very clear even before the final 15 overs. For example, you could have 550 and 480 in the first two innings and then the first team bats again with 50 overs left on the last day. Or you lose 4 days to rain and you just have 90 overs on the last day for four innings. You pretty much know the match is going to be a draw and could end it then. So the 15-over thing serves as an arbitrary limit.

Theoretically, the captains could call it off anytime. Of course, that won’t work because people have bought tickets and will get upset if you just call off the entire day or even half the day. 15 overs (an hour or so) seems designed to avoid too much complaint. Until it is abused as in today’s match between India and West Indies. 86 off 90 is not an impossibility. I suspect that if the 15 overs were not optional, India would have scored more runs and thus had a more favorable equation.

In situations like this, it is not the absolute impossibility of a result that makes both teams agree to a draw. Ironically, it is the possibility of a result. Neither team wants to lose. India doesn’t like it because they don’t want a 1-0 series win become a 1-1 series draw in search of a 2-0 result. West Indies don’t want it because a 0-2 result would be traumatic after a major rescue effort by the tail, not to mention all the problems with their Board. Neither team gets an ideal result, but the compromise is the least worst result. Based on the justifications, it seems like India was more worried that losing 7 wickets was a greater likelihood in 15 overs than making 80-odd runs.

I am not going to blame either team for this, because the incentives for the teams (coaches, captains and players) are biased against taking risks. In the last few years, I can recall India settling for a 1-0 win when they could have tried for 2-0 at least three times (against England, Pakistan and New Zealand) through more challenging declarations. But the rules of the game need not be skewed towards encouraging such proclivities. Make the teams play the extra hour without any choice.

Also it is not very clear to me why there needs to be a distinction between the “wide” calls in Test cricket versus limited overs cricket. I think if there is less margin for wide deliveries, you could see more results.

Finally, I am reminded of that Adelaide Ashes match where Australia had 36 overs to chase 168 and they did it in 33 overs. Today India had 47 overs to make 180, reached 94 in 32 overs and then quit. Different match circumstances and all that, but there is a reason why nobody questioned Australia’s No. 1 rating.

Bonus: This is a good one by Zaltzman

Retirement Woes

Posted on by

Ducking Beamer’s take on retirement had me looking back at my predictions for the retirements from Test cricket for this year. Here is a quick revisit:

  • Much depends on this year’s Ashes and the main protagonists are the two Mikes (Vaughan and Hussey). If England and Ravi Bopara perform well, that could be curtains for Michael Vaughan. If Australia lose and Mike Hussey is not in good form, that could mean big trouble for him. And talking of Mike Hussey, why are people still calling him Mr. Cricket? He had a good couple of seasons before the Law of Averages struck him down.

  • Ntini had an average series and Boucher a below-average one against Australia. We will see. Don’t think Kallis is going anywhere just yet.

  • Dravid was back in form in New Zealand. So that will have to wait too.

  • I still think Muttiah Muralitharan may retire this year, primarily because there are not many more milestones in front of him. And Sri Lanka is not playing too many Tests this year anyway.