Issues of distraction

It’s obvious now: Omitting Connor Williams was a mistake. What was India thinking opening with a makeshift batsman in South Africa? If Williams had played, India could have had a better start, and the debacle that followed would have been avoided.

Clearly, playing Agarkar was also a selection error. Why pick someone so erratic when the consistent and experienced Prasad was available? He always provides good support for Srinath.

The majority of the blame for the top order failure in the first innings and events of the second Test must therefore be attributed to selection. Right?

No. If only it was that simple.

In reality, second-guessing selection and debating who should play instead of whom is worthwhile only up to a point. Ultimately, the right team is the winning team, and winning depends more on the players selected performing to the required standard rather than who is selected. Play well and win and selection becomes a peripheral issue, which is exactly what it should be for a successful team.

At the moment, it appears from the outside that India have become so obsessed with the line-up and composition of the team -- as have the experts -- that they have seemingly forgotten it’s the process, not the personnel, which is fundamental to success. Against a quality opponent in South Africa, India have not had the luxury of anguishing over who should be playing. Albeit hindered by a lack of any first-class preparation outside the Tests, the players selected have had to perform, regardless of position, and thus far it has failed to happen. It would be ludicrous to attribute what has occurred in one and a half Tests to selection.

The main contention has revolved around who should open with Das. This might be ignorant, but secretly I’m beginning to think the unique attributes required to open are over-emphasised. The only discernable differences between opening and playing anywhere else in the top six are attitudinal, temperamental and psychological.

Certainly, one would think all specialist Test batsmen should have the technique, as even middle order batsmen have to contend with the second new ball and pitches that become enlivened after rain. Australia’s Justin Langer, as one recent example, is often unconvincing but has scored two hundreds in his last two innings as an opener seemingly on willpower.

Rahul Dravid on the other hand, although in a different situation in that he was already an established player within the team, might have convinced himself after two innings that he is not capable of it, when logic suggests the difference between opening and coming in at first drop after a handful of overs is minimal. At 3/15, makeshift opener Dasgupta was still batting, so in reality the debate was redundant.

Rightly or wrongly, in the second Test India has given the impression of an unsettled team in a state of confusion, the antithesis of what it should be on a demanding tour when unity and clarity of purpose is paramount. Selection issues undoubtedly have failed to help matters, but the team objectives should have made that relatively irrelevant.

This would appear to be the fault of Wright and Ganguly, who could have simply declared one player would open throughout the series and that the situation would be reviewed thereafter, with the chosen middle order batsmen, if that was who was selected, not to be held accountable for any failure while batting out of position. The public prevarication cannot have helped clear the sense of confusion, although hopefully it has not been as much of a distraction as it has appeared from the outside.

The main focus should be on the performance of the incumbents, irrespective of position. India’s batting frailties away from home were exposed for thesecond time in as many innings by Shaun Pollock. A bad decision was followed by diffident efforts, alarmingly poor shot selection and general self-destruction through an inability to ride through adversity.

Previously, there had been the suspicion that some Indian batsmen did not have the technique to cope with faster pitches that favoured seam bowlers. With the possible exception of Ganguly, that is no longer the case. If the failures of the last two innings can be attributed to one single factor, it’s temperament – and Pollock.

Like Srinath in South Africa’s first innings, Shaun Pollock has been masterful. It has still required bowling of the highest calibre to topple the Indian upper order and Pollock, with his relentlessly demanding line and length, has provided it. The pacier Hayward and Ntini have been a distant second to their captain in terms of consistently testing the batsmen. Like McGrath, it is easy to under-rate Pollock because he is not necessarily a spectacularly eye-catching bowler, but he does enough with the ball from close to the stumps to be spectacularly effective.

Even taking into account Pollock’s ability, the downfall of Dravid was surprising. For one of the world’s best technicians, Dravid has been the batting disappointment of the series to date, failing to move his feet sufficiently to the delivery which bowled him. Earlier, he had calamitously dropped a simple catch off Boucher, but it would be extraordinary unprofessional if that unfortunate error played any role in his dismissal.

In a failed first innings that will probably decide the second Test and with it the series, the approach of VVS Laxman was nevertheless encouraging. Rarely does batting appear to come as naturally as it does to Laxman. Even Tendulkar, for all his talent, seems expertly refined and fiercely diligent. Laxman, though, seems like he has batted the same way all his life and as a consequence his temperament cost him in the first Test.

Laxman’s confidence has been so high that he has sought to dominate the bowling, only to be shocked when a loose edge goes to hand. It has been impossible to criticise, however, because the method of his demise has also been the reason for his success. Happily, he appeared to slightly modify that approach in the first innings, willing to trade off the more sublime but inherently risky shots for a tighter technique and longer innings. As a Test batsman, he is still very much a work in progress.

Now, if only Ramesh returned to open the batting...

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw