Skip to main content

The hidden decline

There has been a lot of talk recently about the big hole in India's Test team that will be left by the imminent retirement of Tendulkar, Dravid, and Laxman and this article is another example of that. And while that is likely to be true in the near term, I think the batting line-up will recover far sooner than most people think. For one, in Sehwag and Gambhir there will still be two world class batsmen remaining and also the bench looks reasonably healthy with the likes of Vijay, Badrinath, Pujara, Kohli, and Rohit Sharma all fighting for spots.

What has not been talked about much and has been a problem for much longer are the bowling stocks. Despite India's improving record in Test cricket over the last 5 years, there has not been a single new bowler who has managed to establish a permanent spot in the team as a world class performer. In fact in the last two decades, India has produced only three bowlers who consistently delivered Test class performances in Kumble, Srinath, and Zaheer Khan. A little more leniency would see Harbhajan join that list but that's it. The assembly line of quicks that have all sparkled sporadically but then fallen away continues to grow by the day. Irfan, Nehra, Balaji, Sreesanth, R.P., Munaf, and now Ishant. And the spin situation is worse if anything with almost no real back-up for Harbhajan. A remarkable stat I recently found was that visiting teams in the past ten years have scored nearly 120 more runs per match than they did in the ten year period prior to that and at a higher run rate. Which essentially puts the batting under more pressure, especially if a foreign bowler has a great day.

So the real worries for the team will begin when Tendulkar and co retire but when Zaheer Khan does. The hunt for match-winning bowlers better start in right earnest!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Et tu?

As a single sport website, I think Cricinfo has brought about a revolution and the fact that they were bought by ESPN is testament to how highly valued they've become. Their editing and approach to articles/opinion has been refreshing to say the least and even though they seem to have had a lot of editorial staff movement they've usually maintained very high standards. Off late though, both in their headline styles as well as in actual content, there seems to be an occasional slippage of standards and an inching towards the modern media sensationalism which is a bit of a pity. This piece  by Siddharth Monga is a classic example. Granted that the last two press conferences by Dhoni and Sehwag  indicated clearly that the captain and his deputy did not agree on this aspect of selection but "discord", "dissent", "public sniping" feels rather presumptuous and heavy handed. Yes, it is a team sport but there is no reason why everyone on the team needs ...

Of backward selections and England's future

A couple of interesting selectorial decisions recently by England and India (and actually as its turning out Australia as well!). For once I think the England selectors didn't panic and showed the right thinking by not picking either Key or Ramprakash for the Oval Test. And luckily for them, both Bell and Trott have performed well enough to vindicate the decision. India on the other hand have actually gone the other way bringing Dravid back to the one-day squad. I'm a bit ambivalent on that one. While the decision to leave out Rohit Sharma and retain Raina was certainly the right one, bringing back Dravid is questionable. It would have been a bolder decision to pick someone like Kohli or Rahane who both played really well in the Emerging Players Trophy recently, mainly because Dravid is quite unlikely to feature in the 2011 World Cup so why bring him back now? As for the Aussies, they will certainly be regretting not picking Nathan Hauritz for the Oval. A defensive decision if...

England in the 90s revisited and oh, for backup bowlers!

So its come to this finally. As the cliche goes, the wheel comes full circle. Australian selection policies these days resemble that of England from the 1990s :-) Took a quick look at the last two years and over 37 Test matches since 1 Jan 2008, Australia have used 36 different players. That's an average of roughly one additional/new player every 1.48 matches! Talk about instability. When compared to India (a new player every 1.94 matches), South Africa (2.14), England (2.24) it shows how things have changed in the last two years with regards to the power balance in Test cricket. What the overall stat also does not show directly is that most of these new players have been bowlers. With the exception of replacing Hayden and Symonds the batting line-up has been quite stable but the bowling has been the exact opposite. Indian spinners like Amit Mishra, Piyush Chawla, Ashwin, and Murali Kartik must be ruing the fact that they don't have an Australian passport! The latter in parti...