Requiem for a fallen team

Dilip D'Souza

Is it possible that we didn't see this coming, this Wankhede-bacle in the first Test? For anyone who's been following Indian cricket over the last ten years or so, it should have been writing on the wall.

For one thing, we're playing less and less Test cricket. When was the last time we played a series of more than three Tests? 1997, in the Windies, when five were scheduled and one was washed out. Before that, 1992 in South Africa, when we played four. When was the last time we played a series of more than three Tests in India -- more or less the norm once upon a time? 1987-88, four against the Windies.

At the same time, we're playing more and more one-day cricket: an endless cycle of forgettable matches that fade into a stultifying sameness. Our players -- with the notable exception of Tendulkar -- are forgetting how to play Test cricket. All of which is dreary news indeed for fans of the real game -- Tests -- like me.

Played hard between two evenly matched teams, there's nothing quite like the unfolding of a Test, with its strategies and possibilities and twists. Far more fascinating than a game that must rely on tomfoolery called the Duckworth-Lewis system to produce results. Yet not only do we play far too few Tests, we are getting worse at playing them.

So a Wankhede thrashing by the Men From Down Under was just what we should have expected. For what it's worth, even if nobody who matters is reading, here's my report card after the Wankhede fiasco.

First, the men who were there:

S S Das: I liked this guy the first time I saw him, in one of those nonsensical run-fest Challenger Trophy games last year, I think. Short, compact, quick feet, looking for runs. I think he's a prospect for the future and should be persisted with. But at the Wankhede, he was a failure. Can he come to terms with that and stand up to the Aussies before his Test career goes to the cleaners?
Grade: C-.

S Ramesh: Made 44 in the second innings, but I think that was pure luck. My feeling is, this dude has neither the technique nor the application for games against the best opposition. Seems to have a tendency to make 30-40 runs and then look for a way to return to the pavilion for a beer. On the face of it, that 44 keeps his place in the team, but it's time we demanded more, and more consistency, from an opening bat. He hasn't given us that.
Grade: C+.

R Dravid: I've always been a fan of Dravid. He's the soundest batsman in the team; but far more than that, his intensity and focus are things the entire team can use. In fact, when Tendulkar stepped down, I thought he would be the right choice for captain, not Ganguly. Till a year ago, he was the man you could count on to produce against the toughest opposition, in foreign conditions. He did so in the Windies, in SA, in NZ, in England. But that was till a year ago. That nightmare Aussie tour seems to have done something to the man. Ever since, he has beaten up on the little fish (Bangladesh, Zimbabwe), but failed against the big fish (SA, Australia). Which is no good any more. He did get 39 in the second innings, but took a few thousand balls to do it. Miserable.

The man is now riding on memories of his fine performances, and that means his place in the team must be questioned. I think one more chance is all he should be allowed. If he fails in Calcutta, he must make way. (I suspect he might do so on his own).
Grade: D.

S Tendulkar: What can you say. Our sole success in Australia last year, and our sole success at the Wankhede. Easily the best batsman in the world right now and I can't see anyone really challenging that for several years. And yet, one thing about Tendulkar niggles. He has not taken India to victory in Tests, against quality opposition, often enough. (Actually, when?) No doubt he got out to a terrific Ponting effort at the Wankhede. But that's the game; these things happen. You make your luck. His record is starting to get littered with brilliant innings that don't quite get India there-against Pak at Madras two years ago, at the Wankhede last week, in Australia last year.

Which is why I agree with Colin Croft: the one batsman in contemporary cricket I would pick to bat for my life would be Steve Waugh. Not Tendulkar. Tendulkar must find the fibre to produce when things are toughest, as Waugh has done time and again. I think that's the sole thing Tendulkar needs to truly be an all-time great. He must win more Tests for India. This Wankhede match was one.
Grade: A-.

S Ganguly: Mr One-Day Wonder. Ganguly is getting to be the stereotype of that syndrome I mentioned to begin this: the cricketer whose one-day success is stripping him of the knowledge of how to play in Tests. Probably even more so than Tendulkar in the last couple of years, it is Ganguly who is our one-day matchwinner. But when was the last time he produced in a Test? I think some amount of complacency has crept into his mind, and that has dulled the desire we saw in England in 1996 on his Test debut. Add to that his awful run out record, and his unforgivable public snapping at vice-captain Dravid when he was run out in the second innings at the Wankhede-a bizarre thing for a captain to do-and you have an increasingly dismal picture.
Grade: D-.

VVS Laxman: Mr Beat Up The Ranji Bowlers. No, I cannot explain that 160+ he got in Australia last year, except to say it was a fluke. Another man whose temperament I admired when he began. But he's had enough chances now, and I believe has proved that he doesn't have what it takes for Tests. In fact, if he deserves a place in the team, then the other Mr Beat Up The Ranji Bowlers, Vinod Kambli, deserves a place even more. At least Kambli has a couple of Test double centuries and a 55 average. Laxman is, to my mind, the prime demonstration of the alarming state of our domestic cricket: scoring 300s in the Ranji trophy is not even a slight indication that you can get 25 against McGrath and co. And that is very alarming.
Grade: D.

N Mongia: Fine, so he got a gritty 25 in the first innings and helped us approach 200. I don't know what it is, but Mongia has never persuaded me that he is a team man. Not once. I don't understand his selection for this Test: Vijay Dahiya didn't do a whole lot wrong against Zimbabwe and should have been retained.
Grade: C.

A Agarkar: A nippy, surprising bowler, one more in our long line of little fast men (Ramakant "Tiny" Desai, Madan Lal, Chetan Sharma, Manoj "Video" Prabhakar). Always manages to pick up a wicket or two, and often the better batsmen too. But something has always bothered me about Agarkar. I think it is a feeling, possibly unfounded, that he thinks of himself as a prima donna, as India's prize cricketer. The fact is, he isn't and never will be. Being the fastest to 50 ODI wickets doesn't cut it. He will always be the support pace bowler; and if he gets used to that, I think he will produce far better than he does. Venkatesh Prasad understood that, and that's why he and Srinath worked so well together. Besides, seven successive ducks against Australia, four of them first-ball, has punched seven big holes in Agarkar's pretensions to being an all-rounder too, and that must be working on his mind.
Grade: C-.

J Srinath: Another guy I have always admired, and a man who should have got far more chances early in his career than we deigned to give him. Sadly, he is past his best now, and I don't think there will be any more matchwinning bursts from him (remember Ahmedabad against SA in '96, thrice on a hat-trick?). I also have started to believe he doesn't quite have the fire in his belly he should. Never did, really. Besides, he seems to have indulged in a few too many gulab-jamuns in the off-season, and maybe has retained one in his cheek as well.
Grade: C+.

H Singh: Singh does some things right, as when he reduced the Aussies to 99 for 5. Gets turn, baffles the batsmen. But two things he needs to work on. First, that run up and action. There's far too much going on. As they'll tell you in tennis, when you're serving, cut out all unnecessary movement. Singh's kind of flailing around before he delivers the ball, and I suspect he's somewhat off-balance when he actually lets go of the ball. Seems like a poor prescription for a long career. Second, temperament. Every bowler is going to get thrashed at some point, as Singh was by one Gilchrist at the Wankhede. The bad ones roll over; the good ones plug away; the great ones relish the challenge, switch gears, find Plan B, do something-anything-to fight back. Singh only seemed clueless. Just clueless.
Grade: B.

R Sanghvi: Poor man. Never looked the part of a Test bowler. Utterly flummoxed by the hammering Gilchrist and Hayden delivered. Oh well, he's had his 15 minutes.
Grade: D-.

Next, the men who should have been there:

Z Khan: I don't understand the selection policy with this dude. Hailed as the brightest pace prospect for years, he's then just left out of the team? Seems raw, but then so was a certain Brett Lee. I think he does have what it takes, both pace-wise and in his mind. Let him go at it, I say. Throw him into the XI, give him the new ball; give him a settled stretch of five or ten Tests to prove himself. I think he will. He'll get thrashed about initially, but he will prove himself.

W Jaffer: I still think Jaffer is our best opening bat. Failed against SA last year, but it wasn't a stupendous failure. Had he been playing against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, I believe he would have made just as much a mark, perhaps more, as Das has. He even picked up a 50 playing for Bombay against McGrath and the Aussies just before the Wankhede Test. He needs to be given a longer run. Must be brought back into the team.

R Singh: How long have we been hearing the lament that we lack all-rounders?

Yet through all that, we've had Robin Singh at hand. Sure, he's 36 or so, but he's fit, hungry to make up for all the years he's missed, and a superb fielder still. It boggles my mind that our selectors have seen fit to drop him from the one-day team too. Not only does this man always find a way to contribute, he brings a certain attitude with him as well: never give up, keep slogging away. That's the attitude this Test team needs desperately. And that's why Singh is certainly Test material. He must be in the team.

M Kaif: How long will this guy spend on the sidelines? Why not select him now while he's itching to go, rather than let him get disillusioned and fade away?

V Raju: Still our best pure spinner, and on that score better than Kumble. I have never understood why Raju, once a fixture in our Test teams, was dropped and has never found favour again. More than Hirwani, this guy deserves a recall.

D Mohanty: Ten wickets in an innings in the Duleep trophy, the best bowler on display in the Ranji tournament, and there's still no place for Mohanty?

Something is rotten somewhere. Another man whose attitude-enthusiasm and fire-is what this team needs. Throw him at the Aussies. He will perform.

V Dahiya: As I said, did little wrong against Zimbabwe. Why was Mongia preferred?

Which brings us to my team for the Calcutta Test:

SS Das, W Jaffer, R Dravid, S Tendulkar, M Kaif, R Singh, V Dahiya, Z Khan, D Mohanty, H Singh, V Raju. 12th: A Agarkar.

Possible change if one more bowler is needed: switch Agarkar and Kaif. Other possible candidates for the XI: H Badani, N Hirwani, J Srinath (thus they round out the XIV who will be at Calcutta).

And my captain? Robin Singh. Purely for the fighting spirit he will infuse into the team.

I still believe my team will lose at Calcutta and possibly at Madras. This Australian team carries too much firepower (a number 7 averaging 60+ in Tests? A Kasprowicz who cannot make it into a Lee-deprived team?) for any present Indian team. But I don't think we will see the desperate kind of loss we saw at the Wankhede. And I think this team, coupled with more sense in selection and scheduling-an impossibility, I know-will turn a major corner for India as far as Test cricket goes.

Finally, a word about why the two side teams had Australia on the run in the games before the first Test. Some of it has to do with the Aussies finding their feet, getting used to the jet lag and the conditions, all that. But some of it also has to do with two other factors, I suspect.

One, and paradoxically, the fact that our Ranji-level cricketers, maligned as they are, play so much less one-day cricket than the national stars do. So I believe they still retain some idea of how to play the longer version.

Two, and more important, the sheer desire of these guys. The Mhambreys and Manes, Powars and Jaffers, they get so few chances to show their stuff against the big guys. Several of them have never had the extended chances against weak Test teams such dudes as Laxman and Ramesh have got. In these side games, they give it their all. And that's why they had Australia on the mat.

And that's the fight that needs to find its way into the Test team. Soon.

Mail Dilip D'Souza