India's last cricketing tour to England saw the visitors slump to a 4-0 blanking. The stats are less unforgiving on MS Dhoni this time; India lost 3-1 (one game drawn). So surely the last tour was more horrendous? No. As painful as 2011 may have been, the Test series this year far supersedes it in agony. For one, this time, India played a team they expect to last. The last squad had several veterans who were on a pre-retirement sojourn. They were respected, but old. These guys are young; they won the Champions Trophy last year in the same country and have made as much money in a few months as their forerunners made in entire careers.
The agony isn't that India lost; it is that India lost meekly. Following the second Test at Lord's, pundits from across the cricketing world hailed India's win as the country's finest ever in overseas conditions. It came on a tough pitch, in the worst of conditions and despite the most unfortunate toss defeat in fresh memory. No one expected the young Indian kids to win that game. But they did, and they did handsomely. Team India's hunger to fight in that game was typified by Ravi Jadeja's belligerent blitzkrieg in the second innings and Bhuvneshwar Kumar's inexplicable batting prowess.
But all of that was washed away as quickly and astonishingly as it was first produced. The next time India set foot on London, a fortnight or so later, they found themselves playing catch up. England had jumped to a 2-1 lead from 0-1, and half a captain, down. The preceding game had ended in just under three days. India had won as many sessions since Lord's as England had won Test matches.
Nothing changed in the last three days of the series. In five sessions of play, England had completed the most dramatic turnaround in Test match cricket for as far as the mind can recall. Their captain was now the toast of the town. A monster by name 'Moeenalitharan' was doing its rounds in cricket clubs all across England. And little-fancied Jos Buttler had successfully cemented his place as England's first-choice wicketkeeper (God save Matt Prior now).
There are two things particularly disconcerting about India's abject surrender to England on either side of the day commemorating the former's independence from the latter. One, they surrendered without a whimper. Two, their batsmen kept committing the same old follies time and again, almost as if poking to the slip cordon and letting the ball slip through bat-and-pad were standard practice in professional batsmanship.
What's worse, it all happened under the stoic watch of Duncan Fletcher - the man whom Nasser Hussain often calls 'the best batting coach' he's ever seen. To be fair, Fletcher won England a historic Ashes series in the same country. But then, how has he now overseen 7 Test defeats in 9 games from the opposite dressing room?
Alright, India don't have Andrew Flintoff or Steve Harmison. Neither Shami nor Bhuvi give the batsmen enough nightmares on most days. And after all, what good is a coach when he can't play himself? Isn't it the men in the middle who win or lose?
A coach is more or less unnecessary when you have men like Dravid and Tendulkar playing in the middle. But while on tour with a bunch of inexperienced kids finding their feet in international cricket, the coach's inputs are obviously far more important and influential. Added trouble with young Indian cricketers today is the fact that they make more money than anyone else their age and in their profession anywhere else in the world. Many have reason to doubt that they're over-addicted to the mad rush of limited-overs cricket, and lack the interest and temperament to play good old Test match cricket in its place. Young Indian cricketers love being impulsive and brash - dominating the bowler or taking blinders in the outfield, rather than stonewalling at the wicket or grabbing sharp ones in the slip cordon. But if Fletcher can't teach his wards the importance of Test cricket or the nitty-gritties of playing it, what use is 'the best batting coach' going to be?
To be fair again to Fletcher, teaching Indian cricket's young guns can never be easy. These guys have seen far too much glamour way too early in their lives. Putting in the hard yards doesn't come all that naturally. And then, there is the culture gap to deal with too - something India's previous foreign coaches have often attested to themselves.
All that said and done, old man Duncan still has a job to do. Will he be India's Dumbledore or will he be the silent stoic?
The agony isn't that India lost; it is that India lost meekly. Following the second Test at Lord's, pundits from across the cricketing world hailed India's win as the country's finest ever in overseas conditions. It came on a tough pitch, in the worst of conditions and despite the most unfortunate toss defeat in fresh memory. No one expected the young Indian kids to win that game. But they did, and they did handsomely. Team India's hunger to fight in that game was typified by Ravi Jadeja's belligerent blitzkrieg in the second innings and Bhuvneshwar Kumar's inexplicable batting prowess.
 |
| Detached: Fletcher needs to instill commitment in his wards |
Nothing changed in the last three days of the series. In five sessions of play, England had completed the most dramatic turnaround in Test match cricket for as far as the mind can recall. Their captain was now the toast of the town. A monster by name 'Moeenalitharan' was doing its rounds in cricket clubs all across England. And little-fancied Jos Buttler had successfully cemented his place as England's first-choice wicketkeeper (God save Matt Prior now).
There are two things particularly disconcerting about India's abject surrender to England on either side of the day commemorating the former's independence from the latter. One, they surrendered without a whimper. Two, their batsmen kept committing the same old follies time and again, almost as if poking to the slip cordon and letting the ball slip through bat-and-pad were standard practice in professional batsmanship.
What's worse, it all happened under the stoic watch of Duncan Fletcher - the man whom Nasser Hussain often calls 'the best batting coach' he's ever seen. To be fair, Fletcher won England a historic Ashes series in the same country. But then, how has he now overseen 7 Test defeats in 9 games from the opposite dressing room?
Alright, India don't have Andrew Flintoff or Steve Harmison. Neither Shami nor Bhuvi give the batsmen enough nightmares on most days. And after all, what good is a coach when he can't play himself? Isn't it the men in the middle who win or lose?
A coach is more or less unnecessary when you have men like Dravid and Tendulkar playing in the middle. But while on tour with a bunch of inexperienced kids finding their feet in international cricket, the coach's inputs are obviously far more important and influential. Added trouble with young Indian cricketers today is the fact that they make more money than anyone else their age and in their profession anywhere else in the world. Many have reason to doubt that they're over-addicted to the mad rush of limited-overs cricket, and lack the interest and temperament to play good old Test match cricket in its place. Young Indian cricketers love being impulsive and brash - dominating the bowler or taking blinders in the outfield, rather than stonewalling at the wicket or grabbing sharp ones in the slip cordon. But if Fletcher can't teach his wards the importance of Test cricket or the nitty-gritties of playing it, what use is 'the best batting coach' going to be?
To be fair again to Fletcher, teaching Indian cricket's young guns can never be easy. These guys have seen far too much glamour way too early in their lives. Putting in the hard yards doesn't come all that naturally. And then, there is the culture gap to deal with too - something India's previous foreign coaches have often attested to themselves.
All that said and done, old man Duncan still has a job to do. Will he be India's Dumbledore or will he be the silent stoic?
No comments:
Post a Comment