10 November, 2000

G'day, all.

I wonder if you are getting a touch fed up with the daily dose of misery I provide through this forum?

Okay, here's the good news -- today is the last instalment for a while. The email diary will resume on the 20th, when I return from my travels.

Meanwhile, I came in to work today to sort out some pending stuff before heading back home to pack. And what do you know -- on the television screen before me, courtesy of Sony Max, is the live telecast of the India-Bangladesh Test that marks the debut of the latter nation as a full-fledged Test-playing nation.

We are, as I write this, into the last session of play. And it is already pretty evident that as far as India is concerned, nothing has changed, really. The side has gone in to this Test with five regular bowlers -- Srinath (seemingly not yet back to any kind of rhythm after his long layoff); Zaheer Khan, making his Test debut; Ajit Agarkar, Sunil Joshi, and Murali Karthik.

That is quite a lot of firepower to aim at a fledgling Test nation. In fact, it is only against Bangladesh that India would go in with five bowlers -- the general practise has been to pack the batting, given its fraility, and go in with four bowlers and hope that somehow, someone, somewhere, takes some wickets.

So. Five bowlers. Into the final session of the first day. And what do you know -- a certain Sachin Tendulkar is bowling, with the score reading 170/3.

A while back, Courtney Walsh and Curtley Ambrose were heard cribbing that the West Indies batsmen never gave them enough runs to bowl against, and that this explained the dramatic slide of the former world champions. In India's case, it is the other way around -- the bowlers struggle to dismiss even ordinary sides, and that means that the batsmen are constantly under pressure and on the defensive.

The question is, why?

I suspect that the answer is very simple -- our bowlers do badly because they don't know how to play Test cricket. And you can't blame them, can you? Time and again, board officials wax eloquent on the importance of Test cricket -- but you wouldn't think they meant it, judging by the calendar they draw up for the side.

We are now into November. We played our last Test in January, against Australia. In the interim, we have played many one day games, even making allowance for the unprecedented five month layoff in between. But no Tests, till this one. And as per our existing calendar, we only have two more Tests to go this year, against Zimbabwe.

Count them -- four Tests, one of those against a debutant country, in an entire year. So how do we expect to develop and hone the skills needed for this version of the game?

Check out vignettes from play so far:

By the 8th over of the innings, the field is reduced to just two slips -- this, with Srinath bowling at one end (first spell 6-5-1-0) and Zahir Khan, with a wicket under his belt, bowling at the other end.

The two spinners bowl with a slip and silly point, but no bat-pad. You might argue that both Murali Karthik and Sunil Joshi are birds of identical feather, bowling orthodox left arm and turning the ball away from the bat -- but that is to forget that the arm ball, coming straight through, is a left-arm spinner's favourite weapon, the ball to which a defensive push by a batsman shaping for the one leaving the bat invariably edges onto pad.

Or take Agarkar. In his first spell, he does what he does best -- aimless bouncers going harmlessly to leg. In his second spell, though, he gets the ball to reverse swing to a remarkable degree. And what is the field he has? One slip. No bat pad, which you would expect when bowling to inexperienced batsman with the ball swinging in, swinging late, and to a pronounced degree.

Worse, is the fact that pressure is never maintained. For instance, at the fall of the third wicket, I was frankly apalled to see Akram Khan being greeted with a field of just one slip -- surely Test cricket is about attacking bowling and fielding? We, however, appear stuck in a defensive, save the runs mindset that is a legacy of the enormous amount of one day cricket that we play.

We've seen this happen under successive captains -- Azhar, Sachin, now Saurav. You will see this continue to happen, even if you switch to Dravid, Kumble and, heck, even Yuvraj Singh and Zahir Khan.

The thing is, Test cricket demands a different, more aggressive, mindset. And a more proactive strategy. In ODIs, you can afford to shut things down, bowl tight, spread the field, block the runs and hope pressure will produce wickets. In Tests, more so on the first day, with four more days to follow, that ploy won't work, simply because batsmen can afford to sit on the splice, and bat out time, waiting for the bad ball and whiling away the interim periods with a steady flow of singles.

We need to learn to attack, both with the ball and in the field. We won't learn that lesson, if we play four Tests in a year.

But as long as money keeps pouring in from sponsors, as long as ODIs continue to draw packed houses, why should we even give a damn, huh?

Let other countries set records for winning dozens of Tests on the trot -- we already have a record no one else can boast of, namely, that we have, by milking the one-day cash cow, become the richest cricket body in the world, with so much cash that spare change to the tune of Rs 94 crore can lie around in the house of the board's treasurer, without the board even realising it until a pesky income tax sleuth digs it up.

Someone once said that the axiom of politics is, that countries, and peoples, get the kind of goverments they deserve. Is that equally true of cricket administration?

Is this all we deserve?

Ah, heck....

Over, and out, for the next ten days, folks. Have a good time, stay safe, and keep that smile on. I'll see you again on Monday the 20th.

Cheers

Prem

Mail Cricket Editor