It has been over a year that India last won a Test match. The win against England at Lord’s, though negated by the 3-1 series defeat, was, indeed, memorable. Nonetheless, India has come agonisingly close to winning a Test match on two other occasions as well. Each of these wins, had they materialised, would have been historic Test victories. What is interesting to note about the two matches is that it is the ‘aggression’ professed by the team and by their captain that was credited for the team having made it that close to victory. However, it may be prudent to wonder whether it was the so-called ‘aggression’ that in fact accounted for the team not having crossed the line.

Please note that Virat Kohli has not sought to be aggressive only in terms of strategy but also in terms of team selection. Raw pace, wrist-spin and attacking strokeplay has been his mantra. The inclusion of Varun Aaron, Rohit Sharma and Karn Sharma in the team at Adelaide and the inclusion of the first two in the team at Galle make the same pretty evident. Importantly, at Adelaide, Aaron and Karn were selected over Bhuveneshwar Kumar and Ashwin and at Galle, Aaron and Rohit were chosen over Bhuveneshwar and Cheteshwar Pujara. In my opinion, these selections are what contributed to India missing out on two famous Test victories. Ashwin has been India’s most successful bowler since and Pujara is not known to plant his foot outside leg to defend a ball pitching on off on a Day Four subcontinent wicket. Bhuvi, though not at the peak of his form, does surely have the potential and the ability to stem the flow of runs and to chip in with the bat.

At Adelaide, both Aaron and Karn leaked between 4 and 6 runs per over. Moreover, neither of them looked incisive or came close to troubling the Aussie batsmen. Aaron’s performance at Galle was similar. In fact, at Galle, Aaron even came to be smashed all over the park by Chandimal when Sri Lanka was dismissed for 183 in the First Innings. In the Second Innings, it may be harsh to expect him to have taken multiple wickets on a third day track. However, it can be expected of him to check the flow of runs when a batsman is virtually scoring at a run a ball so as to enable the spinners to have a better chance at the other end. Unfortunately, he failed to do that as well.

The reason I stress on the bowling performances in both these matches is because, in my opinion, the matches were not lost entirely in the chase but in the number of runs conceded. One can only wonder how different the target could have been at Adelaide, had Ashwin been in the team and how much lesser we could have lost by at Galle had a seamer bowled economically on Day Three.

Having said so, as is often the case with India the batsmen could have salvaged the situation. But, as we know, this was not to be. Rohit Sharma, in my opinion, failed to deliver at crucial moments in both the matches. At Adelaide, India was 242-4 in the Fourth Innings-just 122 short of a historic win- when Rohit Sharma walked out to bat. At Galle, India was 30-2 in a low-scoring chase with the runs dried up and Herath bowling once again with all his guile when he walked in. Both times, the match was interestingly poised, because at Adelaide we did not have any recognised batsmen left in the pavilion and at Galle we desperately needed to shift the momentum in our favour before the chase got out of hand.  Rohit, though, batted like a fish out of water- without any foot work whatsoever on both occasions. In each match he threw his wicket away with a careless shot. Though at Adelaide we did not have any other batsmen to play in his place, one can only wonder how different the chase could have been at Galle with a steady Pujara in the middle.

Did India, then, not miss out on two famous victories because of an aggressive team selection?

As the action now shifts to Colombo, it will be interesting to see whether Kohli will continue with this ‘aggression’ in team selection or will opt for pragmatism instead. Aaron, Karn and Rohit may well be game changers. Their aggression may well win us moments in the game. But, can they win us a match? Test matches victories are hard-earned. Victories away from home are even more difficult. An aggression in the approach towards the game- an intent to win is desirable. But does that mean that we compromise on prudence in this approach? The team selection at Colombo should be interesting to note.

There were fleeting displays of brilliance in the first two tests from Sachin Tendulkar – who is still in search of the vaunted 100^th international ton – but he has consistently fallen short of imposing his will. Rahul Dravid, magnificent in England when no one around him rose above mediocrity, has looked grotesque every time he’s batted in the series. That he’s been bowled, often through the gate, in each of the tests doesn’t help either. But with Dravid it has never been only about technical perfection – some of his greatest innings have, in fact, lacked textbook purity. It has been his ability to come on top through a mighty struggle against all adversities, whether it is playing on the wickedest of wickets or against the fiercest of opposition that has been his most outstanding quality. In Australia, not only has his batting looked ugly, but he’s also seemed incapable of rising above some of these adversities. V.V.S. Laxman, one of cricket’s most artful match-winners, has scarcely made runs away from home in the last two years, and his celebrated hand-eye coordination is certainly not what it once was. Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir have likewise been less than ordinary lately – yes, India have struggled for many years to find a consistently good opening partnership, but the pair has been anything but consistently good in recent times.  Away from home in the last three years, Sehwag averages a meager 32.55, while since the beginning of 2010, Gambhir has recorded only a single century, averaging just 32.05. Numbers can of course be misleading, but these are certainly not figures that help teams win test matches.

The time for mere introspection has passed. The time to enforce a seamless transition has also passed. Where youngsters could have once been eased into the eleven, they now need to be thrust into it. Laxman’s place in the pantheon of greats may be assured, but it has been reported that he may not even make the team for the fourth test at Adelaide. It shouldn’t have come to this; he has performed a terrific service to Indian cricket, and in the ideal circumstances he would deserve a proper farewell. But there is no place for sentiment in sport, certainly not when you are down 0-3 in a four match series. It continues to baffle the mind that Rohit Sharma is yet to make his test match debut – had the transition been more structured, he’d have been playing a pivotal role in this series. But regardless, he must be given his chance in the fourth test in place of Laxman, whether or not Laxman chooses to retire. Ajinkya Rahane, Sharma’s teammate at Mumbai, who has made oodles of runs in domestic cricket, must also be accorded a place in the team. This, though, would entail a tougher decision of dropping one of Sehwag, Gambhir or Dravid – something, which I doubt, the authorities would be prepared to take responsibility for.

The root of India’s problems, though, goes far deeper than issues of selection, and is entrenched in the shortsighted, supercilious attitude of the B.C.C.I., exemplified by its president, N. Srinivasan’s reported remarks after the defeat at Perth: “Next New Zealand is coming to India and it will be followed by England and Australia. We will beat these three teams on our own soil. They cannot beat us here and we will feel very happy.” That the president of India’s cricket board is willing to virtually forego its games away from home shows the incredibly myopic vision of the game’s governing authority in India.

This is a real pity for India is not lacking in talent, certainly not as far as the batting – which has been in shambles in Australia – is concerned. Ajinkya Rahane, Rohit Sharma, Abhinav Mukund, Subramaniam Badrinath and Cheteshwar Pujara have all performed with aplomb in domestic cricket, and certainly deserve a sustained chance at the highest level. Dravid’s performance in 2011 – in which he scored five test match centuries – notwithstanding his display in Australia, perhaps, indicates that he still has runs left in him. But if he is to be retained, he must be pulled down the order, and Virat Kohli – who showed that he has the temperament for test cricket with his displays at the WACA – must be allowed a continued run at one-down. India also needs to think of Rahane and Mukund as viable successors to Sehwag and Gambhir, who cannot be carried on for too much longer solely on the basis of their reputations. Sachin Tendulkar in whatever time he has spent batting in Australia still easily looks India’s best batsman, but nobody should be considered bigger than the team, not even Tendulkar. I am not suggesting that India should, at once, axe Tendulkar and Dravid, but if you’re going to suffer such mammoth defeats as India has in Australia, you might as well do so with youngsters in your team.

Just as worrying as the batting displays has been M.S. Dhoni’s captaincy. Dhoni has always had a laid-back, casual approach to the job – when it works he looks cool and brilliant, and when it doesn’t he looks unconcerned and uninspiring. But the demeanor apart, neither has he looked like a good leader of men nor has his tactics been up to scratch. That he’s batted like a hapless tailender hasn’t helped either. Virender Sehwag who is the vice captain for the current tour has never showed any interest in the job, and in any event his form with the bat scarcely helps further his case. Gambhir is, perhaps, the only other contender, but his batting form has been worrying too, and his long-term future in the side is by no means settled. This then leaves us with Virat Kohli – who for all his indiscipline – has, since his Under-21 days, been considered as a future captain. In recent times, transition to test match captaincy has generally occurred via the ODI path. There has indeed been nothing to complain about Dhoni’s performance as captain in the shorter format, but assuming India wants to prioritize test cricket – which it admittedly doesn’t, but nontheless – it may not be the worst of ideas to consider Kohli, at first, for the ODI vice-captaincy with a view to him taking on the job in the not-so-distant future.

In a series in which the batsmen have given the bowlers so little to play with, it may be unfair to heap much blame on them, but Ishant Sharma’s form, in particular, has been worrying. The verve and the talent that the displayed the last time he was in Australia has been completely non-existent. It is difficult to point a finger at the exact reasons for Ishant’s decline, but none of the consistency in line and length that he once displayed has been evident. Umesh Yadav, while terrific in phases, does not have the reliability of a James Pattinson, who is three years junior to him. That said, Umesh’s raw pace and aggression means that his bowling can certainly be worked upon. What India doesn’t want to see, though, is a regression on lines akin to what Ishant has gone through. Zaheer Khan still retains a lot of his magic, particularly when bowling with the old ball, but it’s doubtful he has too many years left in him. Sreesanth and R.P. Singh who have played important roles for India in away victories have fallen by the wayside, but it is encouraging to see that Irfan Pathan is beginning to make a comeback into the side. Managing the fast bowling group is far harder with the depth in India’s coffins not as rich as its batting talent. But the BCCI’s decision to pick a fast-bowling pool and identify bowlers who would form the bench strength has been one of the more encouraging ones in recent times.

For the average Indian fan, the displays in England and Australia have been far more disappointing than the consistent mediocrity of the early nineties, where the expectations on the team, at any rate, were lower. As daft as it sounds, India went into both these tours as genuine contenders, but perhaps, the team has needed these poundings to grasp the malaise that has slowly been building up. But all things considered, if these defeats do result in relatively wholesale changes, as they should, India are certainly in for an exciting, even if, potentially, painful phase. Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma are two of the finest young batting talents in the world and I am looking forward – as I am sure many others are – to see their fruition as test match batsmen. The darkest hour is just before the dawn.

Let me say it up front. I dislike Virat Kohli. I dislike the way he plays his cricket, his attitude on the field, his incessant proclivity towards abuse, his win-at-all-costs mentality. At the same time I am keenly aware of his prodigious talent. Many a U-19 cricketer has shone at the level before fading away into obscure Ranji oblivion- Mithun Manhas, RS Ricky, Reetinder Singh Sodhi, Amol Mazumdar- the list is endless. Kohli belongs to the rare breed of those U-19 players who have seamlessly transitioned to the senior squad almost immediately. Not only did he merely make the senior squad, at the age of 23, he is already a World Cup champion having played a crucial role in India’s victory. Most notably in the final, with India tottering at 31-2 and ghastly memories of the semi-final against Sri Lanka at the Eden Gardens in 1996 surreptitiously creeping back, Kohli played a mature innings of 35 steadying the Indian ship, giving us all belief that the target could yet be achieved. Kohli’s natural talent combined with his equally natural vituperations makes him a fascinating character, one, who for me, best captures the contradictions at the heart of new and emerging India, which have played out in our national politics, like never before, in 2011.

A strong sense of self-belief is Kohli’s finest attribute. Whether in a World Cup final or in seaming conditions in England, Kohli’s virat self belief, justifiably or otherwise, never lets up. It is the same self-belief that has seen a more activist, vociferous and determined youth take to the streets in protest against corrupt politicians, eve-teasing murderers, honour killers or atrocities by the Indian army in Kashmir. A sense of injustice and wrong has for long prevailed amongst Indian youth. However in the last year, this sense of injustice has been coupled with the unprecedented gumption, to go out there, act on one’s beliefs and believe that the result is possible. New India has thus reaffirmed Swami Vivekananda’s clarion call to the youth of India to “Arise, awake and stop not, until the goal is reached.” Anna Hazare’s campaign, dismissed inexplicably by armchair intellectuals, as a “middle-class facebook activism”, for all its faults was the beneficiary of such an attitude amongst India’s youth who came out in droves to support it. And though a “strong and effective Lokpal” could not be passed this session, (and just as well) it forced Parliament to discuss the issue openly, thereby making our elected representatives accountable like never before.

Unfortunately, the flip side of this self-belief is an uncritical and almost irrebuttable belief of one’s rightness and the consequent wrongness of others. In a seemingly inconsequential incident on Day 3 of the Boxing Day Test, Kohli fielding in the deep unnecessarily attempted an ambitious and meaningless direct hit. No one was at the stumps and Ravichandran Ashwin backing up was nowhere close to preventing the overthrow. Of course, that made little difference to Kohli, who convinced he was not in the wrong, spewed some choice expletives in Ashwin’s direction. Similarly, when he was adjudged LbW for a golden duck in the second innings, he stood around and glared at the umpire as if he had just announced a call for genocide and Kohli was about to become its first victim. Needless to say, he couldn’t be caught more plumb in front.

Now conviction in one’s view is no bad thing but conviction which becomes dogmatic to not countenance criticism or allow for introspection is deeply problematic. Emerging India suffers largely from a similar malaise. The classic example of this is a foundational plinth on which emerging India is built: The 24*7 news media. In a year in which the role of the media has been scrutinised like never before, their coverage of the recent Lokpal debate in Parliament, was testimony to how uncritical and unquestioning the fourth pillar of our democracy has become. All channels were quick to claim that what transpired in Parliament was the “murder of democracy”; it was “murder at midnight” and a “travesty of representative government.” They also uniformly claimed credit for being “the first” to predict that such an “orchestrated chaos” would ensue. What was so murderous about what happened in Parliament? Is the government not entitled to defer the passage of a bill to the next session if a better debate could be facilitated? And can the discretion of the Vice-President of India so blithely be questioned by a few news anchors, without proof or special knowledge? Now it well may be that the chaos was orchestrated by the government, but surely the entire sequence of events was more complex than a banal headline. To claim, without evidence that can be brought to bear publicly, is journalism of the worst kind; of a kind that revels in the power of shaping public opinion without having to reflect even momentarily about the gossip, hearsay and rumours which shape such opinions.

Kohli undoubtedly has the spunk to take on the world and beat it. Cricket isn’t just a game, it’s a battle which has to be won. Much like India in 2011, which dared to take on the world on the nuclear liability bill, adopted an increasingly aggressive stance regarding permanent membership of the UN Security Council, became an independent voice in climate change negotiations, Kohli stridently blazes his willow away to glory, irrespective of the nationality of the opposition. No longer do we cower in front of sledge-happy Aussie quicks, super-fast South African ones or Pakistanis keen for restoring their national pride on the cricket ground- we take them on and quite often win.

But yet for some reason, I, despite my obvious delight in seeing India win in cricket and prosper everywhere, don’t feel happy in the same way. I still pine for elements of the older India; an India of Javagal Srinath or Anil Kumble, where despite losing more often than winning, there was an innocence to the way we played our cricket and led our lives. When winning and results didn’t matter very much but doing the right thing did. When hundred hundreds was a wonderful statistic to achieve and not a daily national obsession, when the Beatles sat easily with Bharatanatyam and Treasure Island, one of Calcutta’s first malls with New Market, one of its oldest, when life was altogether more simple and our identity more entrenched.

In no way at all am I advocating a return to an older, less economically prosperous, but more socially secure India. Not only is it not possible, but it also undesirable. What I would like to see is a coming together of Kohli’s India and Srinath’s India; where winning matters, but winning by being playing the game in the spirit of the game matters more, where being important in world politics matters, but having an independent mind matters more, where organising a protest movement matters, but ensuring that the atmosphere is not so vitiated that no debate and fruitful negotiation is possible matters more. And where we continue to remember that while we must make every effort to become a superpower in the 21^st century, our current and most pressing concern must be to ensure that every child in the country from the day she is born, can get three square meals a day. That, I hope, is what we can go some way towards achieving in 2012.

A very happy and prosperous new year to everyone!

If I were to have only one problem with this shortened, frenzied format of the game, it is the ensuing death of elegance in batsmanship. Maybe it requires judgment based on different aesthetic standards. A violent heave over cow-corner, perhaps, has its own beauty, which happily for me, though, I am yet to discover. Sharma, however, can make the fiercest stroke look elegant, because the result for him is often a product of timing rather than power. Therefore, even in T-20 cricket he can make batting look like an unruffled, uniquely beautiful form of art.

Sharma’s talent has never been in question. Temperament, though, is a different matter. After bursting onto the international scene with sparkling knocks in the inaugural World T-20 at South Africa and in an ODI tri-series in Australia, he has failed to find even a modicum of consistency, restricting our pleasure to his rare showings of brilliance. In first-class cricket he has continued to make a pile of runs ensuring he remains in the national reckoning even if he may have fallen behind Suresh Raina, Virat Kohli and Cheteshwar Pujara in the pecking order.

Sharma, like Mark Waugh and Damien Martyn, when in full flight, makes batting look so ridiculously easy that when he is dismissed, it appears a product of carelessness. This, though, is a price that one pays for elegance, which is often a creation unknown even to the exponent. No doubt, some of his failings have been a result of a lack of concentration and perhaps even problems with attitude. But still only twenty-three years of age, Sharma remains one of India’s brightest talents, someone who can treat batting like a form of high art – a rarity in today’s age.

Ricky Ponting and Mahela Jayawardene conjured centuries of differing style if equally fine merit in the quarter-final and final respectively, but India emerged as the winner on both these occasions without any of its batsmen reaching the three figure mark or any of its bowlers scalping a substantial portion of the wickets. Likewise against Pakistan in the semi-final, it was an amalgam of exceptional fielding from almost every member of the team and a collectively excellent performance from all the bowlers that won India the tie. This is in stark contrast to the World Cups between 1983 and now, in which the team has relied, almost solely, on individual performances for success.

In 1987 as defending champions, playing at home, India was a much-fancied team, but in the semi-final against England, the bowlers wilted, allowing Graham Gooch to sweep his way to a marvellous 115 and in reply, barring a fine, stylish hand from Mohammad Azharuddin the team yielded without a whimper. In 1992, India failed to make the semi-finals, with its victory against Pakistan – a team to which it has never lost in World Cups – the only bright spark. In the next edition, held in the sub-continent, India was amongst the favourites, even though the side was virtually a one-man army, which was perhaps the cause of its undoing. Sachin Tendulkar had a magnificent tournament, but when he fell for 65 against Sri Lanka in the semi-final, the team capitulated under the pressure of the chase, albeit on a deteriorating Eden Gardens wicket.

1999 again contained many moments of individual brilliance – most notably Rahul Dravid’s and Sourav Ganguly’s partnership against the Lankans at Taunton and Tendulkar’s hundred against Kenya, a day after he had returned from India to complete his father’s funeral, but the team lacking in verve and imagination, succumbed in the decisive fixtures. It defeated only Pakistan in the Super-Six, failing to qualify for the semi-finals.

In 2003, no doubt, India had an excellent tournament. But in the final it surrendered to a combination of a masterful showing from Australia and its own lack of command over the situation – blatant over-excitement amongst the players, exemplified by that infamous first over from Zaheer Khan. Inside the opening exchanges of the game, India had the wind knocked out of its sails.

Four years down in 2007, as Alok mentions, the World Cup was altogether forgettable, memorable neither for notable individual showings nor for the team’s performance – an embarrassing exit ensuing at the Group stage.

The recently concluded World Cup, though, as I mentioned earlier, may not have contained many moments of statistical individual brilliance, but in displaying wonderful skills collectively, the team has, as a group, captured our imagination. In the tournaments between 1983 and 2011, what we remember are those solo displays – whether it be Tendulkar’s 97 against Pakistan in 2003, Ganguly’s and Dravid’s partnership at Taunton in 1999, Ashish Nehra’s 6 for 23 against England in 2003, possibly even Sunil Gavaskar’s only ODI century, a 103 that came, wonder of wonders off a mere 88 balls against New Zealand in 1987, to name a few. But in the years to come, when we look back upon the triumphant 2011 campaign, it is perhaps the team as a collective which we will remember – an incredible achievement indeed.

]]> http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/an-incredible-journey/feed 4 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/india-versus-england-gripping-yet-flawed http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/india-versus-england-gripping-yet-flawed#comments Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:43:57 +0000 Suhrith http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=2529 As narratives go, the tie at the Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bangalore between India and England was as compelling as any. The sides scored 338 runs each in a match that remained on tenterhooks for much of its duration – especially in the final over in which England needed 14 runs to secure victory – and gave this World Cup its first thriller. But let’s not get carried away in the resonance of the tale – by calling it a great game – and ignore the teams’ respective deficiencies that was, in the first place, responsible for providing the game with the grip that enraptured the viewers. No doubt, the batting from both sides made for a fantastic sight – but the plaudits must be tempered in light of the poor quality of bowling and fielding that was on display.

We watch sport for a variety of reasons and a riveting story is often what we search for. In that sense, this game fulfilled our needs – constantly remaining on a knife-edge. But when you cut through the brilliance – admittedly there was a lot of that, especially from the two centurions, Sachin Tendulkar and Andrew Strauss – you are left to grapple with lots of dismal performances in the field. Easy catches were dropped, misfields were aplenty, the lines from the bowlers – barring Tim Bresnan – were wayward and the captaincy and the field settings from both M.S. Dhoni and Strauss lacked verve and imagination. All of this, while contributing heavily to the narrative, certainly did not make for pretty viewing. So to say that the contest was ‘a perfect advertisement’ for the one-day game – which it may well be, considering the general obsession with runs – veils the quality that both teams lacked.

On current form, regardless of their batting prowess, it looks unlikely that either India or England will be in contention towards the end of the tournament. Unlike test-matches, one-day games can, no doubt, be won on the strength, purely, of a team’s batting. But World Cups tend to be different – might in a single department has never been sufficient to lift the trophy. At least England was missing Stuart Broad, who is easily its best limited overs bowler. India had no such excuses. Its bowling – barring a brief yet stirring spell from Zaheer Khan – was uninspired and consistently poor, outdone in its sloppiness only by the fielding. India must, therefore, consider the option of playing five bowlers, a buffer that is necessary on sub-continental pitches for teams lacking sufficient bowling quality – an option that is particularly viable in India’s case, considering the strength of its batting. This would, of course, mean that one of Virat Kohli, Yuvraj Singh, Gautam Gambhir or Yusuf Pathan would have to be excluded; not an easy decision by any means. But the exigency of the situation calls for a bold move and in view of the form of Kohli (not to mention his fielding skills), Yuvraj’s usefulness with the ball and Pathan’s undeniable match-winning abilities, it may well have to be Gambhir who makes way.

Gambhir is a fine one-day batsman, whose worth to the team is undeniable. Yet, in a squad filled with as many batting stars as India’s is, it is inevitable that one of them will have to miss out. India could learn from Spain’s football team, which for much of the 2010 World Cup, started without Cesc Fabregas, favouring the more defence minded Sergio Busquets in the interests of team-balance. Winning a World Cup is no easy feat. And it certainly won’t be possible if sentiment is preferred over pragmatism.

1. Pick the bowlers that suit the conditions

Pitches in the subcontinent, contrary to general perception, are not all slow, dry and low. Different grounds across the stretch of the region tend to produce surfaces that are varied in subtle yet vital ways and therefore, part of M.S. Dhoni’s job will be to rotate his bowlers to suit the playing conditions. Where possible though – except on pitches that have a clear propensity to aid the quicker bowlers – Dhoni must try and incorporate two frontline spinners in his line-up, for spin is clearly India’s biggest weapon. With Harbhajan Singh’s position in the Eleven considered unassailable, Piyush Chawla and Ravichandran Ashwin will vie for the second spinner’s spot. Chawla’s exemplary form in India’s two warm-up games coupled with the fact that Ashwin like Harbhajan is an off spinner, could see the leggie make the cut. If Chawla is preferred, a case may also be made for Suresh Raina to be included in place of Yuvraj Singh, considering that India will have a full-time spinner who can turn the ball away from the right-handed batsmen. Some believe, rightly in my opinion, that Raina should play ahead of Yuvraj, in any event, based on his superior batting record in the subcontinent in recent times and his excellent fielding skills. But that said, Dhoni seems to view Yuvraj’s bowling as a key cog in the present set-up and he is unlikely to drop him unless his performances are monumentally poor.

Additionally, the opponent’s team composition must also be considered before choosing between Chawla and Ashwin. Against teams littered with left-handed batsmen, Ashwin should be the preferred option. And if Ashwin is picked, Yuvraj, perhaps, irrespective of his batting form should be fielded to lend variety to the bowling attack.

2. Use Yusuf Pathan as a Floater

It is crucial that Yusuf Pathan’s destructive ability as a batsman is used to its maximum potential. Pathan looks to be at his most dangerous when batting at number seven, but India mustn’t fall into the trap of pigeonholing batsmen into set positions. He should be used as a floater in the order and must be accorded enough time to inflict the most severe damage upon the opponent. Pathan, perhaps, doesn’t need the aid of a power-play to do his thing, but it wouldn’t hurt to ensure that the batting power-play is used, if possible, when he is in the middle.

3. Use the Third Power-Play with Purpose

The third power-play – a stretch of five consecutive overs to be selected by the batting team when not more than three fielders can be placed outside the 30 yard circle – has rarely been used with ingenuity. Very often we see teams waiting until at least the 40^th over, and in some cases even until the 45^th over, before calling for the power-play. This may be sensible in some cases, but when a team is seven or eight wickets down, the batsmen at the crease are ill-equipped to make the most of the situation. If India can use the option creatively, even between the 15^th and 20^th over where the situation so demands, it can add exponentially to its batting totals.

4. Endeavour to pick wickets in the middle overs

India got many of its strategies wrong in the disastrous 2007 World Cup where it crashed out in the group stages, of which the bowling tactics in the middle overs, particularly, bordered on the ludicrous. The spinners were sought to be used as mere containing acts and the middle overs were seen as a time to check the flow of runs, with the team rarely looking at wicket-taking options. What ensued, though, were neither wickets nor an improved economy rate. (Here is a table which shows that the economy rate in the middle overs during the 2007 World Cup was directly proportional to the number of wickets picked) The spinners, therefore, need to be utilised as attacking weapons and as we saw in the practice games, nothing works like wickets in containing the run flow.

5. Place the right fielders in the right positions

In a recent address at Calcutta, Sir Vivian Richards and Steve Waugh both opined that the best fielding side will win the World Cup. For India’s sake, one hopes that their prophecies don’t come true. Virat Kohli and Suresh Raina – who may not feature in the Eleven – are the only world class fielders in the Indian squad and it is quite improbable that the team would be among the better fielding sides in the competition. That being the case, Dhoni needs to ensure, perhaps more than most other captains, that he gets the right fielders in the right positions. The likes of Munaf Patel, Ashish Nehra, Zaheer Khan, Yusuf Pathan and even Sachin Tendulkar, are poor ground-fielders, which means that Dhoni will have a great deal of hiding to attempt. But unless an effort is made towards that end, India can wave its chances of lifting the Cup, a big goodbye!