The `Dream' Indian team still a dream

Just the other day, I again went through Neville Cardus' collection of memorable essays published as `Cardus in the Covers'. What a joy it was to go through the book! Tastes in cricket literature may change but nothing can alter the unique flavour of the mellifluous Cardus prose and style.

One particular essay `My ideal team' caught my fancy. Cardus was convinced - like many others of his time - that the English team that took the field at Edgbaston in the first Test of the Ashes series in 1902 was perfection personified. It is generally considered by historians as the strongest batting side ever to represent England - all eleven players scored centuries in first class cricket. But with the bowling line up consisting of Lockwood, Hirst, Braund, Rhodes and Jackson, it is also a strong attack. Of course little need be said about the formidable batting which included Maclaren, Fry, Ranji, Tyldesley and Jessop with that incomparable wicket keeper Lilley completing the side. That they could not win the match was because of the weather with more than half the playing time in the scheduled three day game being ruined by rain. But that was sufficient time for Hirst and Rhodes to bowl out Australia for 36 - their lowest score in Tests.

It would of course be next to impossible to come up with the ideal Indian side - except maybe in one's dreams! After all India has played nearly 350 Tests and there have always been some weakness in the squads. Picking the greatest ever Indian XI itself would be a difficult exercise and there really is no way that anyone could pick an Indian side that took the field in any Test in the last 68 years and say ``yes, this is my dream team.'' Cardus himself offers the England team that played Australia in 1928-29 and the side that took on Australia at the Oval in 1938 as other strong squads, perhaps fit to rank with the playing eleven of 1902.

Narrowing the field down to touring Indian squads would perhaps make the task a bit easier but even then it would be a herculean task to pinpoint one. A touring squad which registered the rare victory in a Test overseas would normally be a strong team. That is not to say Indian teams at home have not been formidable. But with wicket and weather conditions favourable, they have been able to run up pretty enviable records. Would anyone in his right mind dare to compare the Indian teams which won ten straight victories at home in the period 1988-1994 with some of those I am going to mention?

Again, this is not to say that an Indian touring squad which did not win abroad was not a strong side. No one can say that the 1946 team in England was a weak side. A side which has in its ranks Merchant, Mushtaq Ali, Lala Amarnath, Hazare, Modi, Mankad, Kardar and the elder Pataudi had to be a strong team. It's just that England, with Hammond, Hutton, Hardstaff, Bedser, Evans, Wright, Compton and Washbrook were stronger.

Certainly the 1946 team compared very favourably with the two sides which won Test rubbers in England in 1971 and 1986. Indeed, the 1971 team must rank somewhere near the top - and not just on results. Except for a weak new ball attack, it had everything - solid batting, spectacular fielding and world class spinners. The team which 15 years later won the three match series emphatically was just the reverse in bowling strength - not particularly strong in spin but very effective in the seam department. Of course, the fact that the victory in 1971 was historic gives that squad a special aura. Also, it must not be forgotten that England were much stronger in 1971 than in 1986. Conversely, India were perhaps a trifle fortunate in winning the rubber on the first occasion whereas in 1986 they were a bit unlucky not to make a clean sweep of the series.

Obviously the 1971 team to the West Indies must rank very high on the list. Again except for a certain weakness in the opening attack, this side too had everything. If anything, the final result came as proof - the only victory so far by an Indian team in the Caribbean. The team that visited the West Indies five years later was certainly stronger in the seam department, while retaining the strengths of the 1971 side - strong batting and effective spin bowlers. They were a shade unlucky to lose the four match series narrowly. The 1980-81 team to Australia was also very balanced. This time there was a good seam attack backed by decent spin bowling with the batting being the main strength. Incidentally it was the first Indian side not to lose a series in Australia - and against a strong home team. A similar feat five years later was somewhat diluted by the weakness of the Australian side.

Even the strongest Indian teams to visit Pakistan have come a cropper - in 1978-79 and four years later - and this somewhat devalues their strengths. The first Indian side to visit the neighbours in 1954-55 was heavy on spin bowling but with a negligible opening attack. Thirty five years later the position was reversed. Srikkanth's side had penetrative opening bowlers but the spin attack was hardly worth the name. Ironically these two sides managed to come back with the rubber shared - even if all matches were drawn.

The problem with finding the ideal Indian team is that if it was strong in many departments, there would always be at least one weak link - the lack of a suitable opening pair, the lack of a new ball attack, a mediocre spin attack, slipshod fielding, a vulnerable middle order. This has been particularly true of Indian teams in the last decade. Even the finest of Indian sides have faced this problem robbing us perhaps of the really ideal `dream team.' But perhaps a dream contest between the only two sides to have won Test rubbers in England - always the most difficult task given the change in the wicket and weather conditions - would provide some sort of answer.