The onus is on the Indian batsmen
The present team can certainly take someinspiration from the 1979 squad, the only previous outfit to getfour Tests in England
Partab Ramchand
08-Aug-2002
India has lost the first Test of a series in England 12 times out
of 14. The only exceptions are 1971 and 1986 and interestingly
enough India won the series both times.
The present team can certainly take some inspiration from the 1979 squad, the only previous outfit to get four Tests in England. On that occasion, India was given little chance against an England team that, following the defections to Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket, was probably the No 1 cricketing nation. India lost the first Test by an innings and 83 runs in four days, were shot out for 96 on the opening day of the second Test and yet heroically held on to draw not only that Lord's Test but also the two remaining games. |
The present team can certainly take some inspiration from the
1979 squad, the only previous outfit to get four Tests in
England. On that occasion, India was given little chance against
an England team that, following the defections to Kerry Packer's
World Series Cricket, was probably the No 1 cricketing nation.
India lost the first Test by an innings and 83 runs in four days,
were shot out for 96 on the opening day of the second Test and
yet heroically held on to draw not only that Lord's Test but also
the two remaining games.
That England team, led shrewdly by Mike Brearley, was, as I said,
arguably the best in the world. But it is astonishing how India
have repeatedly gone down in England to teams which are all too
modest in their composition.
In 1959, India lost all five Tests, during one of the finest
summers, to an England side which had been thrashed 4-0 in
Australia just the previous winter. In 1967, England were not
exactly on top of the world and yet India lost all three Tests.
The home team were also a fairly mediocre outfit both in 1990 and
1996 and yet India again contrived to lose the series each time.
Paradoxically, England were the best team in the world when India
registered the historic series victory in 1971.
There was a time when the wicket and weather conditions in
England were heavily loaded against the Indians. And while these
remain factors, they are now not as pronounced as in the past.
Many of the current Indian players have had considerable
experience of playing in England, either on previous tours or
through their county engagements. Moreover, in the second half of
the English summer, the weather is more or less settled and the
pitches do not pose the kind of problem they may pose in May and
June.
What's more, this is again a pretty modest England side. Their
mixed record at home in the last few years underlines this. And
then there is the growing injury list. The bowling, in the
absence of Darren Gough, Andrew Caddick and Alex Tudor was pretty
ordinary at Lord's. Now Simon Jones, inarguably their fastest
bowler, and Graham Thorpe, arguably their most accomplished
batsman (in addition to the already injured Marcus Trescothik),
will be missing from the line-up at Trent Bridge.
If after all this, the Indians are still one down in the series
after the opening game, a major factor has to be that they are
not playing up to potential. They have allowed themselves to be
out batted, out bowled and out thought.
As I pointed out in a previous column, nothing will convince me
that England's batting line-up is as strong as India's. The
bowling admittedly has discernible weaknesses and it may lack the
firepower to bowl out England twice. But India has the batting to
draw a Test even if they lack the bowling to win it.
The bookies, in fact, had a drawn game as a prohibitive favourite
on the second evening of the first Test with India 128 for one in
reply to England's 487 and who could find fault with them for
that? Virender Sehwag was going great guns, Rahul Dravid was
batting in typically obdurate fashion and Sachin Tendulkar,
Sourav Ganguly and Venkatsai Laxman had not even picked up their
bats to take on a bowling line-up that lacked both bite and
variety. However, as is well known, the scenario changed
dramatically on the third morning.
The fact of the matter is that India should never have allowed
the game to drift away so quickly. It took a No 8 batsman with an
average of 7.81 going into the match and a dubious record of once
having registered five ducks in a row and a No 11, who has no
pretensions to being any kind of batsman, to show up the failures
of the famed Indian batting line-up.
Whichever way one looks at it, then, the onus is on the batsmen,
more than on the bowlers, to perform. They have a greater
reputation to live up to. As the stronger of the two departments,
it is imperative for the batting to shoulder much of the
responsibilities.
Again, the present set of batsmen can take the cue from their
predecessors in 1979. On that occasion too, the batting was
stronger than the bowling and so well did they perform that but
for a couple of unfavourable decisions by the umpires, India
could well have drawn level in the final Test at the Oval. There
is nothing bowlers like better than commencing their job with a
big total to defend. In these circumstances, even a toothless
bowling line-up can perform like hungry lions.