India's negative mindset

[Maranello]

What do people make of India's strategy in the current Test of playing three spin bowlers (Kumble, a leggie; Harbhajan, an offie; and Kartik, a left-armer). This leaves room for only one seamer in the side, Zaheer Khan, and Pathan sits on the bench. To me cricket without any seam bowling is not really cricket! India have form in doing this; when Pakistan played them in the 1980s, they would often only have Kapil Dev as the sole seamer, and three or even four spinners. I have even seen the truly strange spectacle of a spinner, eg Chauhan or Maninder Singh being given the new ball, and much more frequently, spinners coming on as first change from the 5th or 7th over!

I really hoped that with the MRF Pace Academy producing seam bowlers on a production line, things like this would be in the past - India have produced decent seamers of late, eg Khan, Pathan, Nehra, Balaji, Agarkar et al, with many more, though of lesser stature, coming throgh. Still going in with only one seamer though seems to be a thoroughly negative move - I can imagine few things more defensive than this. And I really don't like this negative, short-termist approach being described as prudent - going in with 8 specialist batsmen and 2 spinners would be even more prudent, but it would ruin Test cricket as a spectacle.

Even Sri Lanka used to frequently go for this tactic, though more infrequently now with Vaas, Zoysa, and latterly Fernando providing good seam options. But in the 1980s they would go in with three spinners, with Ravi Ratnayke at one point being the sole decent seamer played by them. Both Sri Lanka and India have paid the penalty for these negative tactics, having abysmal away records, and home records which are not that consistent either - India only have the 6th best Home Tests win record, bettering only SA, NZL and the minnows, whilst Sri Lanka's home record is 5th amongst all the countries. So these short-termist strategies have not really helped them even become invincible at home, and less said about India's away record, the better.

On the other hand, I don't recall Pakistan ever going in with only one seamer - even on some of the dustbowl pitches and stadia of 20-30 years ago, we would go always have Imran Khan, sometimes backed up by a specialist seamer like Jalal-ud-din or Sikander Bakht etc, and on the odd ocassion, working with Mudassar Nazar, who was a decent all-rounder himself.

By all means, play to your strengths - and select "horses for courses" - but also build a team for the longer team..and please, don't kill all the excitement in cricket as a spectacle!

The following extract from a cricinfo article today brings in some further points, and adds some historical perspective. It is by an Indian, so hopefully not biased against India in any way!

Originally Posted by cricinfo

Short-sighted tradition
Analysis by Dileep Premachandran

{...}

But even Kapil's record-breaking feats couldn't change the mindset. The twilight of his career – which stretched into pitch darkness and the selfish pursuit of landmarks – coincided with the advent of Javagal Srinath, the quickest bowler that India has ever produced. Yet, when Srinath was at his peak and consistently clocking around the 150kmph mark, he barely got a home game. Between his debut at Brisbane in 1991-92 and the South Africa series in 1996, when he routed the visitors with a fiery spell of 6 for 21 at Ahmedabad, Srinath's name was stencilled on the bench for nine Tests in the subcontinent.
His reward for a marvellous return of 4 for 33 at Newlands in January 1993 was to be dropped for the home Tests, where Anil Kumble – supported by Rajesh Chauhan and Venkatapathy Raju – demolished England. More than a decade on, it was Irfan Pathan's turn to feel the cold shoulder, as India stuck with the legspinner-offspinner-left-armer combination that first came to the fore when Bhagwat Chandrasekhar, Erapalli Prasanna and Bishan Singh Bedi were at their peak.

Like Srinath, Irfan {Pathan} has reasons to feel aggrieved. His career stats – 18 wickets at 43 apiece from seven Tests – aren't flattering, but it shouldn't be forgotten that four of those matches were played against a team that are far and away the best in the world. Both Wasim Akram and Glenn McGrath rate him highly, for his attitude and keenness to learn as much as his ability to swing the ball at brisk pace, and his omission from the XI here might just hamper the momentum that he has built up over the past 12 months.

Interestingly, Akram had 19 wickets in his first seven Tests, although his average (24.21) was lower as a result of playing teams – New Zealand and Sri Lanka – markedly inferior to the current Australian side. And he had the undoubted advantage of playing for a team that was then second only to the West Indies, and captained by Imran Khan, prince among fast bowlers and a great nurturer of precocious talent.

When India's spin quartet held sway, captains used to present curators with razor blades and open the bowling with the likes of Abid Ali and Eknath Solkar. The spinners were usually on by the fifth over, and the ball used to be rolled along the ground rather than thrown so that the lacquer – which doesn't last long on grassless and bone-dry pitches anyway – would be scuffed up even quicker. Rightly or wrongly, that era has been painted in golden hues.

But even then, India, save for a remarkable season in 1971, were never world-beaters. Frequently thrashed out for sight when playing away, they weren't even impregnable at home, losing 3-2 to the West Indies in 1974-75 and being humbled 3-1 by England two years later. The satisfaction obtained from short-term gains obscured the big picture, and that malaise continued right up until Sourav Ganguly and John Wright realised that India would continue to disgrace themselves abroad unless pace-bowling talent was encouraged.

Regrettably, the demoralising losses against Australia appear to have prompted a return to the dark ages, and defiant arguments about playing to Indian "strengths". This morning, Zaheer Khan bowled a superb spell with the new ball, only for its effect to be utterly diluted by Sourav Ganguly's trundling from the other end. Whether such tactics will ever lead to consistent performances away from home – the true test of greatness – has been wilfully ignored.

Slow low tracks and a spin trident can win you games against middling opposition – and the odd thriller against a formidable foe – but they do nothing to equip you for a charge to cricket's summit. Pakistan's record outside the subcontinent is far superior to India's because they realised quite early on that only a judicious mix of pace and spin would triumph abroad. One-trick ponies might win the odd race, but they don't even get near the finish line in the big derbies.

[Zainub]

I couldn't have agreed with you more, I really couldn't. 2 spinners, ok that's alright, 3 spinners, ok, even that's alright, but only if you are playing on a shocker like Mumbai, but for a perfectly respeactable Kanpur pitch, why? I know it must have been difficult dropping either of the three, because all three of them played a very important part in the Mubai test, but I don't think the pitch I saw SA batting on today (especially in the last session) and finishing on top at 230 for 4, with Hall playing a very responsible 78 not out, was a 3 spinners 1 seamers pitch. Pathan's reverse swing could have come handy for India in those conditions.

I thought it was really brave decesion from SA though to ask Hall to open the innings, and its nice to see it has paided off well. Just nice to see South Africa doing well with a young team, I'd be looking forward to seeing Tsolekile (w/k) bat and keep wickets tomorrow, and after that throught out the test. Bruyn was the other debutant in the SA team, and I'd be looking at his performance closely.

Coming back to your point, and the one made by Dileep Premachandran in the article I agree. I would also want to add what Javagal Srinath once said about the Indian pitches, you are never going to know how good your spinner really is if you are going to ask him bowl on a dust bowls that are turning a mile from ball 1. That's only going to give you bowlers that exploit conditions well.

That's why I was so impressed with what Karthick had to say at the end of the Mumbai test (he said he preffered bowling on flat decks because that gives him a bigger challenge). India would be better of preparing wickets that like all normal pitches that give turn and bounce to all types of spinners as the match progresses and not right from the start. That would also give there seamers a some what better chance.

[haseebbutt007]

I is a very negative thinking on the part of Indian team officials . I think that Irfan Pathan is a real dangerous bowler . He has the abbility to bowl out ny player on ny pich . I think he must have been given a chance in 1st test . u should have atleast 2 seamers in ur side . To go with just 1 seamer reflects their negative thought . U cannot win a test match by playing negatively .

[vvvrulz]

I agree, I'm surprised to see three spinners, and especially in the place of Pathan. His batting ability is also an asset, possibly the allrounder that Indian cricket has been waiting for. Surprised also to see Mohammad Kaif left out. On a Kanpur pitch, there really isn't much logic with taking in three spinners, I wish New Zealand had television coverage of the match..

[Beny]

Originally Posted by vvvrulez

I wish New Zealand had television coverage of the match..

Don't you guys get fox sports?

On the point of the thread...

India seem to have a nervous breakdown every time they get beaten and I get the feeling now that in an attempt to win back some momentum they are trying to play it safe. Then again it's important to remember that the three spinners they have chosen all played very well against the Aussies and earned their spots. Is their something wrong with Pathan. Surly he would be taken over Kahn for bowling, batting and feilding?

[vvvrulz]

To answer your first question, we don't pick up fox sports, we have a local satellite network which picks up local and Australian based cricket, and any other cricket involoving New Zealand globally.

As for the Indians, I think Pathan was fit to play, its bizarre that he was overseen for Zaheer Khan. What would happen when L.Balaji returns? Even he must now fight for his spot despite a good series in Pakistan.

[Beny]

I dont understand why they insist on Kahn. He's barely even a 2nd rate bowler. Pathan is the future. I'm not that much of a Balaji fan either. Kumble, Kartik and Singh all deserve a spot and then I would go with Pathan and/or Balaji.

[freddie_flintoff]

I think we should use Harbijhan, Kumble, Balaji and Pathan.

[Maranello]

I feel vindicated. India play two seamers in the second Test, trust them and rely on them, and on a docile pitch, Pathan and Khan account for all five of the SA wickets to fall on day 1.

According to Dileep Premachandran on cricinfo:

But old ball or new, India's pace bowlers were magnificent. Zaheer beat the bat consistently, and Pathan's incisive seven-over burst after lunch was a perfect example of inspirational toil without reward. He swung the ball both ways, and despite the inside-edges and the near misses, the spirit never flagged.

Full cricinfo verdict here.

[vvvrulz]

India has to learn to be more flexible with the bowling attack, and not just rely on spin. That's partly the reason why they haven't been able to pick up wickets outside of India.