Bowling partnerships and team purpose

The series has reached its half-way point and for India it is definitely a case of glass half-empty rather than half-full.

Sourav Ganguly said after the first Test that all touring sides struggle in the first Test and that there is lots of cricket left. Any period of grace, not that it really existed, is now well and truly over. With consecutive wins at Headingley and the Oval required for an unlikely victory, it is time for India to show the fortitude and desire necessary to reverse their series fortunes. And in their weakest department, a virtual 180-degree reversal is indeed needed.

Batting, captaincy, fielding, 'keeping... none of it can really help win without motivated, quality bowling. If the first Test, when England made 487 aided in part by India's indiscipline, was bad, then the second, on a more helpful pitch, was appreciably worse. Inept and seemingly indifferent, it took nearly a day's worth of lost play and 115 overs of solid rearguard batting to save a match in which India had posted a respectable first innings 357.

The failure of the bowling attack is at first impression due mostly to quality. At this stage of their careers Zaheer, Nehra and Agarkar are to varying degrees probably over-rated as Test bowlers. Realistically, they don't form an imposing unit. However, there is also an important question of approach, desire, and just how much value India places on Test cricket, the answers to which could make a difference to the overall bowling picture.

There exists is a perception, sometimes abetted by the focus of supporters, that India is a somewhat individualistic batting-obsessed team overly concerned with records and "performances" instead of winning as many Tests as it should. It can also appear India has been distracted by the prospect and occasional moments of one-day glory, on which too much emphasis is placed, while too readily accepting repeated Test failure abroad.

Reader Sriram Sivasankaran made some thoughtful observations along these lines recently. "The real point is the difference placing emphasis on Test cricket versus one-day cricket.

"This fundamental flaw in not understanding the importance of Test cricket is one of the key reasons why India has remained a mediocre Test nation especially since 1983. For Australia, winning the 1987 World Cup was the launch pad for success in becoming a world champion side in both forms of the game. Winning the World Cup in 1983 was one of the worst things that could have happened to Indian cricket as the World Cup has become an obsession and an end in itself."

Whatever the lasting effect of World Cup success 20 years ago, India does not manifestly appear to embody all the qualities of the best Test teams of the present day. Listing the attributes which in part separate Australia and South Africa as the top two teams, one thinks of a fierce determination, genuine desire to work hard to improve, and above all commitment to the sense of team purpose - though the last does not come to mind instantly because it is accepted as a given. They possess talent, ability and "stars," but it's not significant. Or at least, those types of external characterisations are secondary, because they mean nothing in terms of performance.

Australia and South Africa appear to have a clearly understood, though tacit, set of priorities to which all else is subordinate. A team ethos and justified belief that if all strive to give the best of themselves, to work for their team-mates, then success will surely follow. A professional level of analysis, planning and goals adds to the preparation and sense of purpose, but the effort is typically towards the next circumstance that can be controlled - hence Ricky Ponting recently saying talk of the World Cup will be consciously avoided, as it will take care of itself when it comes around.

I admit to being biased in favour of the qualities described above, simply through having followed the rise and rise of Australia from the early-to-mid nineties onwards. What Australia has achieved during that span is marvellous and the mentality which has driven it to success generally to be admired. However, this is not to claim that in a sport as richly diverse as cricket this mentality should be slavishly copied merely because it works for them. But it does make a useful starting point, as in any sport the strengths of the best tend to be adopted until someone else devises another method to improve, which is then incorporated by the rest all over again. There should be room for taking some of the universal sporting principles currently best exemplified by Australia and South Africa and using them in the most appropriate context for India.

For whatever reason, India's bowlers have not performed in a manner appropriate to team needs. Fundamental, obvious, but still too often overlooked is the creation of pressure on the batsmen, something not achieved by each bowler just following his own whims.

The essential value of establishing partnerships is often discussed in relation to batting; less so when it comes to bowling. "Partnership" in a bowling team's context is perhaps even a misnomer, as at its best it's more like a network in which 11 players see themselves as significant contributors in the business of dismissing the batsmen. It's too easy to see cricket as a game of one-on-one, the gladiatorial clash between the single bowler and lone batsman. Frequently more telling is the combined and sustained pressure brought to bear by the whole.

Simply, the better teams realise their bowlers are involved in partnerships with the team-mate operating from the opposite end. India's, if they have been fully appreciative of this during the first two Tests, haven't bowled like it. Harbhajan Singh is presently India's best bowler, but as well as using him effectively, it is incumbent upon the rest of the attack to recognise the threat he should present and to provide the necessary support. Even with ideal field settings and Harbhajan bowling a perfect line, his potency is considerably diminished if there are easy runs available at the other end. Were he to receive support from a partner prepared just to be disciplined without bowling for wickets, then the pressure becomes intensified and wickets often result anyway.

This is proven not only in the way a champion pairing like Warne-McGrath perform, but even White-Flintoff or Vaughan-Hoggard. The principles are the same irrespective of quality. Committing to them, though, requires a sense of team purpose and an element of self-sacrifice. The best sides purport to enjoy each other's success as much as their own and it's necessary for India's bowlers to see wickets achieved by team-mates as a result of pressure exerted by both as a triumph.

It is easy to be short-sighted and consider only the consequences of one's own spell. In the awful manner in which Agarkar bowled during the second Test, for example, it was difficult to conceive there was any depth of thought given to creating pressure for his partners. Too full, too short, too wide and generally hapless, Agarkar's bowling was symptomatic of the slightly less aimless way in which India bowled generally.

Ability is a factor, but a well-organised India with its priorities in order should relish the prospect of bowling to England regardless, in the way in which a depleted England have taken up the challenge of bowling to India, despite the batsmen winning some of those clashes. The approach can't be faulted, which is not currently true of India.

Batting, perhaps, allows more scope for individual strategy and self-expression, indeed self-centredness, though this too can go awry as it did with Tendulkar and Dravid during the first Test. In becoming a better bowling side, a greater understanding of team requirements is needed, which India currently either does not appreciate or is unable to implement. To be sure, poor batting has been responsible for many of India's away defeats. But in the longer term, a change of priorities is necessary, particularly in how the members of the bowling attack perceive their roles.

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw