Yet another lesson is that the lack of an all-rounder continues to have considerable impact on the middle overs
Partab Ramchand05-Feb-2002In the last couple of years, the Indian team has registered limitedovers series victories over New Zealand, South Africa and Zimbabwe athome, and had only lost to world champions Australia, that too by aslim 3-2 margin.
Yet another lesson is that the lack of an all-rounder continues to have considerable impact on the middle overs. Agarkar, in this context, continues to be an enigma. Despite a couple of good performances with bat and ball, he still has not cemented his place in the side, which for a lad of his undoubted talent can only be termed disappointing.
Given this admirable record, it came as no surprise when they werelisted as hot favourites to wrap up the six-match series againstEngland in double-quick time. With these expectations in mind, whenthe final margin reads three-all, then it is clear that there issomething wrong with the Indian side and that there are lessons tobe learnt.The first lesson to be driven home is the fact that the Indians justdo not learn from past mistakes; notice how they threw away winningchances in successive games at New Delhi and Mumbai. When the askingrate, with wickets to spare, is under six an over, where is the needto go for shots that have an element of risk?The second lesson is that they cannot move in for the kill. The bestexample of this came about during the last-wicket partnership betweenAndrew Flintoff and Darren Gough at Mumbai. When the ninth wicket fellat 218, there were still eight overs left in the innings. JavagalSrinath, Ajit Agarkar and Sourav Ganguly, between them, had 10 oversyet to be bowled. And yet, the bowling was entrusted to SachinTendulkar and Hemang Badani. Flintoff and Gough, scarcely believingtheir good fortune, alternated between singles and the occasionalboundary, and before one was aware of it, the score had leapt by 37runs from seven overs. When the final margin of victory is five runs,the folly in allowing the last-wicket pair to put on so many isunderlined. Incidentally, Srinath later needed just one delivery toterminate the partnership.The third lesson concerns India’s bench strength. With Rahul Dravidunavailable and VVS Laxman dropped midway following a series of lowscores, the responsibility in the middle order rested on the young andinexperienced shoulders of Dinesh Mongia, Mohammad Kaif and Badani.The trio generally failed to give the scoring rate an impetus afterthe electrifying starts from Tendulkar, Sehwag and Ganguly. This wastrue even in the matches that India won.Yet another lesson is that the lack of an all-rounder continues tohave considerable impact on the middle overs. Agarkar, in thiscontext, continues to be an enigma. Despite a couple of goodperformances with bat and ball, he still has not cemented his place inthe side, which for a lad of his undoubted talent can only be termeddisappointing. Under the circumstances, India had no option but toplay six batsmen and four bowlers. It must be said that overall thebowling was better than the batting, even though the gamble of playingSarandeep Singh instead of Harbhajan Singh at New Delhi proved costly.In Ajay Ratra, it must be said that Indian cricket has unearthed atrue find. With encouragement, he could be the solution to the vexingwicket-keeping problem. But there were a few other gains from theseries. The recognised batsmen scored the runs, while the frontlinebowlers took the wickets. It was also good to see Ganguly return toform with the bat, even though his leadership qualities took a bit ofa dent. The tendency to let things drift at times was apparent. It maybe tempting to say that England, admittedly a team with certainlimitations, did not deserve to share the series. But their showingwas a supreme example of what fired-up team spirit and inspiringcaptaincy can achieve. Certainly, history and form were against them,and yes, man for man, the Indian team looked stronger.But matches can also be won in dressing-rooms and hotel corridors, andnot necessarily on the field. England proved this cricketing adage inspades by delivering a performance that could not fail to win thehearts of even the most diehard Indian cricket supporter. They werethe underdogs, and for a team dismissed as no-hopers, their levelingthe series in the manner they did should rank as one of the mostoutstanding feats by any visiting team in India.England clearly had no intention of throwing in the towel even afterthey were down 1-3, or even when India looked to be in a winningposition in the last two games. If the batting lacked consistency,they could always depend on one or two batsmen making a sizeablescore. Marcus Trescothick was a revelation, and there is no doubt thatthe tour will do him a world of good. Hussain himself came up with anumber of useful contributions. Nick Knight took some time to find hisbearings, but his century at the Kotla was a classy effort. The middleorder remained a problem, but Flintoff made up for this with a fewbreezy knocks.The bowling covered up for any loopholes in the batting. The seamerswere quite outstanding, and Gough, Andrew Caddick, Flintoff andMatthew Hoggard served the side admirably. By the end of the tour,Flintoff had emerged as a genuine match-winner, and Hussain got anunexpected bonus with spinners Jeremy Snape and Ashley Giles strikingwhen it was most needed. Giles’ second spell at the Kotla was one ofthe highlights of the series. It takes guts for a bowler to even thinkof bowling again after he has conceded 32 runs in his first four oversand when confronted by an inform Ganguly treating spinners withdisdain. But Giles ripped the Indian innings apart with some incisivebowling, and his five wickets in five overs proved decisive.England were also well served by young James Foster who, withencouragement, could have a long and fruitful career behind thestumps. The fielding, not generally known to be England’s strongpoint, was a revelation. Led by their skipper, the players threwthemselves at the ball, dived and leapt to take catches, and displayedan efficiency that almost matched the South Africans at their best.Hussain, as he had done in the Test series, again led by both personalexample and with tactical acumen. A lot of thought had been given toplotting a particular batsman’s downfall, and in matters of strategy,Hussain certainly stole a march over Ganguly.
