India's performance in the first Test

Prem Panicker replies to your e-mails.

Name: Amol
Question: Hi, I had thought that after the performances of Kaif and Yuvraj, our batsmen will be under tremendous pressure to perform in tests also because the bench is really strong. Doesn't look like -based on this test's performance. What do you say?

Answer: I would have thought that the pride of playing for the country, the professionalism of telling yourself that you cannot put your name to something that is less than good, were enough motivation.

I am not sure the presence of Kaif and Yuvraj and Mongia is any kind of pressure -- do note that even before the series began, Mr Dalmiya had made it very clear that while Kaif and Mongia would stay back, they will not play in Tests.

And further, they cannot -- their names are not part of the original 16, and you cannot select outside the box except in case of injury.

So the only "pressure" our batsmen are under is from SS Das and Sanjay Bangar, at best.

Cheers
Prem

Name: Murthy
Question: Hi Prem, What will it take for the selectors to drop Kumble and Ganguly from the test team? What we really need are two good spinners, to believe that our seamers can dismiss a decent line up twice on a good pitch is a pipe's dream.

Answer: What will it take for the selectors to pick teams based purely on form and current performance, as opposed to name and reputation (which is the real question, and I am not sure only Kumble and Ganguly need to be named in this context)? I wish I knew the answer to that one -- if I were to take a guess, I would say accountability. If once the selectors are held accountable for the results or lack thereof, then they will do the right thing. As things stand, they get all the advantages of power, with none of the responsibilities that come with it.

Name: Surya
Question: What do you think of the idea of PROMOTING LAXMAN and DEMOTING SACHIN and GANGULY. I dont know whether Ganguly as captain will really do it, but I think this batting line up Jaffer, Sehwag, Laxman, Dravid, Sachin, Ganguly breeds confidence than the one which went in first test. But then problem with this is maybe our tail will start with #5 batsman :-)) I am not trying to be harsh (mind you I am a fanatic of Sachin) but I think Sachin needs a jolt (maybe the media has already given him enough) from the team management. I am sure Sachin will come out triumphant out of this but when is the question. Hope he does it in the same proportions of how he did at Sharjah, or how he did immediately after his Fathers demise. Maybe a triple hundred or atleast a double hundred. The only thing I dont want to see after this rough patch is he losing his natural game (which he has already to some extent).

Moving on from Sachin, I think we need to drop Nehra (if we need to accomodate Bajju) bcoz its unfair to drop Kumble for that good if not impressive show at Lords. Nehra has not utilised properly the oppurtunity to be a frontline bowler. Also need to give thought about Ratra, he just doesn't have it in him to be a intl batsman I guess.

PREM NEED YOUR COMMENTS AS TO HOW DRAVID WILL FARE AS A WK IN TESTS

So my team for the 2nd test is:

Jaffer, Sehwag, Laxman, Dravid, Sachin, Ganguly, Agarkar, Kumble, Khan, Nehra/Bajju/Ratra

Answer: I agree with the concept of playing Laxman at three -- that is where he belongs, that is where he will play his best cricket, and his best cricket is what will win you Test matches.

I agree, too, that it is time Sachin got a bit of a jolt -- or more accurately, a message that past laurels fade, and that a batsman, more so one so widely acclaimed as the best in the world, needs to perform to standards higher than those of other mortals.

As far as picking bowlers are concerned, I would like to see them pick bowlers depending on the conditions -- rather than on criteria such as "fairness".

And finally, I don't think Dravid as a keeper in Tests is going to work -- firstly, the difference between a pro and a part-timer is the difference between a half chance snapped up (and in the process, the tide of a game changed) and a possible chance going down, with consequences to the bowling side. And this is without even considering the effect on his batting.

Name: Sanjay Mirchandani
Question: The points 1, 2 and 3 are the same comments that I wrote to another article of India Abroad; the article called "Over to you"...

1> Will Rahul Dravid be the first wicket keeper batsman would be keeping wickets in the tests and come one-down? After all, didn't Farookh Engineer keep wickets and open the innings (I am sure there are more such examples currently also where a wicket keeper comes one-down)? We could then replace Ajay Ratra (he with first and second innings of 1 and 1 with one of the young Indian guns - Kaif, Mongia or Yuvraj (unfortunately not for the current series). Can you imagine the batting powerhouse that this would create and the sense of confidence it would give the other batsmen also.

2> Until India can cultivate some world-class bowlers (especially in the seam department), we will not be able to win matches. No matter how many runs are scored by the batsmen. If the bowlers cannot keep their end up of getting wickets and putting the pressure on the opposition, then all the batsmen's effort will time and again go to vain. After all, we need to get the 20 outs to win the test match.

3> It is time we got Mr. Tendulkar off the high pedestal that we hold him on. I am not saying that he should be eliminated off the team, but we need to lessen the pressure on him so he can for once (at least in recent times) play a match-winning innings.

In addendum, Mr. Panicker, from your columns I understand that you are in New York and were hoping to catch up with some Yankee baseball games. Mr. Panicker - if you were to discuss the Yankees with the New York fans, you would realize that this current Yankee dynasty that has won four championships in the last six years is built on pitching. Similarly, the team called Texas Rangers which is a batting powerhouse can barely make it to the playoffs because they do not spend their money on pitching. Hence, I bring up my second point - about cultivating bowlers of a high caliber. If India does not do this, they will go the way of the Texas Rangers; because they will not be able to get the necessary 20 outs that are required to win a Test Match. They may do well in one day tournaments, but their Test standings will not improve.

On another note, I dont think it is a good idea to have two left arm seamers (Nehra and Khan) open the innings. There has to be a variety of angles that a batsman should have to face and that can come with a right hand bowler sharing the new ball with a left hand bowler.

Please let me know how you feel about my comments, Mr. Panicker.

Answer: Farokh Engineer was a wicket-keeper first -- the fact that on his day he could bat like a dream was a bonus. So too, for that matter, could Budhi Kunderan, if we are looking at Indians alone. Dravid is a batsman first -- his wicket keeping is at best competent, but when you are saddled with a less than penetrative bowling attack, the last thing you can afford is to have half chances go down.

I agree with the other two points -- yes, we need world class bowlers and in this connection, it is ironic that the rest of the world, INCLUDING Australia and South Africa, send their bowlers to Chennai to train at the MRF Academy, whereas the Indian board never makes adequate use of that facility. As to pedestals, I have never been much for putting anyone on it. I believe that a good game, a good performance, needs to be applauded, a bad one criticised -- irrespective of who it is we are talking about.

Thanks for those points about the baseball bit -- I see the parallel, definitely. In fact, I need to touch base with Indians who know both cricket and baseball, I need an informed guide to talk me through that sport and its intricacies, for my own understanding.

Name: Arun
Question:1) What changes do you think we should be making for the 2nd test. My biggest fear is that India will play 2 spinners on a green wicket, just because the tour selectors ( captain, vice captain, coach, senior player? ) copped a fair bit of criticism for dropping Harbhajan for the 1st test.

Answer: Your question contains part of the answer, Arun -- they actually need to first look at the wicket, see what its nature is, what the weather is likely to be over the duration of the Test, etc before picking a bowling combination. Because three seam did nothing here does not in itself mean it will be equally ineffective in Trent Bridge -- only the pitch and conditions can answer that question.

Question: 2) Why do you think that the Indian team is so slow to react to tactics of the opposing team. Hussain's tactics, in the first innings, was clear to everybody except to the Indian batsmen. My theory - In India, most cricketers are drawn from the ranks of poor performers in schools/colleges, thus most of them possess IQs that make them slow to react to new challenges.

Answer: I don't know about the school performers bit -- but I think that yes, the art of captaincy is not really developed here. Again, I tend to think of the Aus and SA models -- where, even from junior levels on, players are exposed to past captains who spend time in their academies, talk them through situations both real and hypothetical, give them insights into what captaincy is all about. For instance, in Aus it is mandatory that the past captains spend X time at the cricket academy, with the wards. We merely pick a player and tell him to lead.

Question: 3) Do you think Parthiv Patel, should be included for the 2nd test, he cannot possibly bat worse than Ratra, but what about his keeping, have you seen him keep?

Answer: From all that I hear, the boy is good with both gloves and bat -- and that is why I am reluctant to say he should play in the second Test. We need, for the long run, a keeper who is a permanent presence. If we drop Ratra and pitchfork Patel into the side now, it is with a price tag -- we are telling him alright, a guy who was part of the champion junior side couldn't hold his place at this level, now let us see what YOU can do. And that is no way to blood a 17 year old. I would rather that he go through this tour with the team, keeping in side games, getting used to the idea of being at this level, playing with and against internationals, and shedding those nerves which, considering his age, you have to make allowance for. Hell, we have waited this long -- if need be, let us wait out this tour, if need be another one, and let us bring the boy into the side when he is really mentally ready. And if at all possible, let us give him a first outing where the pressure is somewhat less -- say a dead rubber.

Name: Srinivas Krishnamoorthy
Question: I feel the Indian middle order is mentally conditioned to perform badly abroad. The mental scars that Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dravid carry from poor collective performances in the past make them fail in a self-destructive manner. When Tendulkar and Dravid started off on the third morning they saw the ball moving around and thought "This is similar to the situation on that first morning in Jamaica. We screwed up then....lets bat cautiously and prevent a repeat." The result is that they create a mental block where their batting lacks fluency and rhythm. A sure recipe for failure. I'd rather put my money on a Kaif or a Sehwag simply because they have fresher minds with none of that mental baggage that the seniors lug around. Likewise when Sachin and Dravid went out to bat in the Natwest final they were thinking " Oh no! One more final where we are screwing up". On the other hand I bet Kaif was thinking"The last time I batted at Lords I won the World Cup (under 15) for India. No reason why I can't win this one today". Any comments?!

Answer: That our seniors carry the baggage of the past is obvious. That the solution is to give the younger boys a fair share of the sun -- it paid dividends, for instance, in the recent ODI series and I dont mean just in the final -- is equally true. The catch though is that our selectors are not apt to think as clearly as the fans do -- as one famous member of the tribe once told me, "Team selection is not a problem really, I mean, we already know 10 names, we only have to find another four or five".

Name: Gaurav
Question: Don't you think the Indian media got completely carried away by the Natwest triumph? Frankly, an objective assessment of India's Test team to me always revealed glaring weaknesses - we lack bowlers to take 20 wickets on good pitches, we have only 3 batsmen who can be counted upon to score consistently abroad, and lastly, we lack the self-belief as a result of sustained failure abroad. And don't forget, we just messed up an even easier chance to win a series in West Indies just a couple of months ago. With these obvious weaknesses, it is clear that we still depend on a few individually brilliant performances to even come close to winning a Test abroad. Considering this, the over optimism of the Indian media in proclaiming India as favourites for the series certainly reflects poorly on their understanding and analysis of the game. And mind you, this is not the first time they have got it completely wrong. Answer: Hi, Gaurav:

No, I don't think "carried away" is quite true -- I mean, if ANY team hunts down 325, there is going to be a certain amount of praise, it is after all, in and by itself, an achievement worth praising. As for extrapolating from that to say India was favorites in the Tests, I don't think the media did that either.

The assessment that we could win this Test series -- and it needs pointing out that the British media thought so too -- came from an on paper evaluation of the two sides, in context of the fact that England would be missing gough, caddick and trescothick, weakening them immeasurably. In that context, to suggest that India is the side more likely to win does not actually reflect "poor understanding" -- in passing, it needs to be mentioned that even the bookmakers (who have to actually put their money where their mouth is and therefore have more at stake) said the same thing.

I think what the media did not budget for, frankly, is the team's limitless capacity to throw it all awauy.

Name: Bhushan
Question: What changes do you expect to see in the batting order and bowler selection of the Indian team for the second Test?

Answer: I would expect to see, in the batting order, Laxman upped to three, with Dravid coming in one rung below him. If we say that Dravid's forte is to hold one end up, then I would suggest that this is best done IF and when we lose two early wickets, rather than immediately after the fall of the first wicket even if that wicket happens to fall at 100+.

This would in turn entail the pushing down of Sachin to five, and Ganguly to six, and these are the positions those two gentlemen deserve on current form.

It will also hopefully send out the right signal to the two of them, that performance and not reputation is the sole criterion.

I wouldn't want to pick bowlers, though, without even knowing what kind of track is in store -- after all, the selection of your bowlers is not merely an exercise in theory, the pitch and the conditions have something to do with it.

Name: Devashish Pathak
Question: I am a great fan of Tendulkar. He started in West Indies with a fluent 70 odd runs, followed by a century and has hit a trough since then as far as Test matches are concerened, barring a lone scratchy 80 odd runs in the last Test match in W. Indies. Also I read yesterday that he was very shaky in both innings at Lords in terms of ducking againt short-pitched deliveries, handling outswingers and ofcourse missing the line of the ball completely in getting bowled. My question is what is the best analysis that you can come up with as far his recent batting failures are concerned. Tendulkar's repeated dismissals by LBW or getting bowled indicates that he is either introduced some recent flaw in his technique or is just facing a cricket overdose and probably needs a break.

Answer: You could be right, in that playing for over a decade non stop, with the pressure of universal expectation to perform at very high levels each time you go out, has taken a bit of mental toll.

If that is the case, he himself is best fitted to know that, and should ask for the break.

Technically, this is not something you judge long range -- if I were even to attempt a judgement, I'd prefer to do it with access to the kind of technology that permits you to call up replays of dismissals over the past say year, look for commonalities, then think from there. But off the top? One thought did occur -- he has, if you notice, of late cut out a few strokes he was very famous for -- like the short arm push off the front foot, that would take the ball on the up and hit over the bowler, very high and hard. More importantly, the short arm, swivel pull played off the front foot, where he just transfers body weight back at the point of impact.

The commonality with both these shots is that you transfer weight onto the back. And he hasn't played much of those shots ever since he first had that back problem of his.

That in turn makes me wonder if he has made adjustments in his pick-up and front foot movement as well, and if these adjustments are now opening up a vulnerability. I wouldn't want to sit at a desktop in NYC though and analyse this -- that is something the player, and his coach, should work on with all the technology they can command.

Name: Baba Ati Question: Since the West Indies series Laxman has been running out of partners which means he belongs at #3 or #4 spot. How difficult is it to figure that out Mr. Ganguly? The captain has no business going so high up in the order given his propensity to get out when the team needs him most. The pitches all over the world are turning out be lifeless which means India needs a spinner who can beat a batsman in the air with more loop than turn. It is time to scout for young spinners and please let's have a 'dump Kumble' campaign.

Answer: Baba, yeah -- you are right, he belongs at 3. RD at 4. Then Sachin, then Saurav.

Since I elaborated on all this in an earlier response, will let it lie for now. :-)

Name: Sandeep
Question: Much has been talked about Agarkar's flawless century. But as the commentators rightly pointed out, it didn't change the course of the match. But he drove home a message that he is no muck with the bat. And on his day(dog's day??!) he may be able to provide some useful contributions also. I feel this is going to make the team selection for the next test all the more difficult. Don't u guys think this will leave the team management in a cat on the wall situation - Whether to choose Agarkar or Harbhajan for the next test? Isn't this the basic problem we have while selecting a right team? One single performance changes our thought! But it's also unfair not to give the centurion another chance to prove his mettle! See I am also terribly confused. I would like to know where you guys are going to put ur money. Agarkar or Bajji?

Answer: The commentators who pointed that out are correct -- you pick a bowler for the way he bowled; the fact that he gave you some runs is a bonus, but only a bonus. The meat and potatoes is how he does his day job. And that needs to be the only criterion for selection -- batting ability then enters the picture if say you have to pick one of two seamers both bowling at around the same skill level -- if that is the case, then yes, you would opt for the guy who bats better, of the two.

But I dont think that in turn means it is a question of do we drop AGarkar for Bajji -- what if the Trent Bridge track actually favors seamers?

I would be more inclined to check the track out, then decide what kind of combination is required