A constant debate we see Indian cricket fans have is who was a greater test match winning batsman - Sachin or Dravid? Or maybe Laxman? The arguments are sometimes statistical, sometimes anecdotal. For e.g., Sachin scored six hundreds in Aus, but not one led to a win. Dravid scored one, the monumental 233/72* in Adelaide and that led to a win. Sachin scored a 241* and we couldn't close the series. So on and so forth. Fans of each player find enough examples (statistical or otherwise) to prove that their favourite was the greater test match winner.
But you know what else happened in Adelaide in December of 2003? Ajit Balachandra Agarkar took the only 5-wicket haul of his 26 match test career. And you know what happened a few weeks later in Sydney? Kumble and the fielding unit could not bowl Australia out.
The point I am essentially making is that such debates are moot. Test matches are won by bowlers. Batsmen can at best set up a test match win for their bowlers or save a test.
And as fans of the Indian cricket team, we have enough examples of the same. Go check any test match win, and you will find a good bowling performance in every win, though not necessarily a great century in each. This is also why Kumble is actually India's greatest test match winner, though sadly not in the category of corresponding greats from other test playing countries.
Ofcourse you might say that a perfect batting line up can chase 500 every time but the number of times even 300+ chases have happened in the history of the game should tell you how difficult such a task has been for even the greatest of batting lineups.
In fact, India's very own and recent golden age of batting did not have a great record it in terms of really big fourth innings chases. But the reverse can happen. You can be a very good test team on the back of a brilliant bowling attack and an average batting line up. Naturally, to dominate the game for a longer time and remain at the top, you would need both the departments to be firing but even then, you would need definitely need a world class bowling unit as a starting foundation.
Let us look at the great WI teams of 1980-1995. Starting from after the away defeat to NZ in 1980 and ending just before the home loss to Aus in 1995, WI played 29 series with a record of 20-0-9. Of these, in the first 20 series, their record was 15-0-5. Of these 5 drawn series, 3 were against Pakistan - 2 in Pakistan and one in the WI. The other two were away in India and NZ.
So in those ten years, only one team managed to stop the mighty WI winning a test series at home, and that was Pakistan. In fact, during a 3 year spell, Imran's Pakistan held the WI of Richards and Marshall to three 1-1 draws. If you have the time and the inclination, do check the series scorecards of these three series. You will see that there are bigger names in the WI top six than in Pakistan's, but that is nullified when Wasim, Waqar, Qadir and Imran hold Marsall, Walsh, Ambrose and friends to a draw.
Look at it another way. In the last 25 years, the strongest test teams have been Aus, SA, Pakistan, England, India and SriLanka, ordered by win percentage.
(http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=percentage_won;spanmin1=15+Feb+1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team)
Now think of all the great players in that period. The general consensus in the batting list is Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Waugh and of-late maybe Sangakkara and Chanderpaul, in no particular order. The bowling list similarly would include Wasim, Waqar, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Donald, Pollock, Steyn, Ambrose, Walsh, Kumble and so on. Do see where the Indian bowlers rank in terms of averages.
(http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=150;qualval1=wickets;spanmax1=14+feb+2014;spanmin1=15+feb+1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling)
There is no explanation for this apart from the historically inferior quality of Indian bowling. Pitches cannot be an excuse since Pakistan and SriLanka don't have pitches which are much different. Look at SriLanka's test record for the last 25 years. It is fairly impressive for a country with only 32 years of test history. But during those 32 years, for close to about 20 years, they had one of the greatest test bowlers and look how much that helped them.
India's neighbours to the west have not had a single batsman in the caliber of Sachin or Dravid in the last 25 years. But during this period, which includes India's golden period of 2006-11, and the corresponding disaster for Pakistan, India still have an inferior win percentage. India's win-loss is better but the number of draws India have are also far higher - the result of regularly observed inability to close matches which they have dominated.
(http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=win_loss_ratio;spanmax3=14+jul+2011;spanmin3=1+jun+2006;spanval3=span;template=results;type=team)
The weakness has got so worse recently that when India prepared turning pitches against England, it backfired and led to a home series loss. This was the nadir as it took away the single solace an Indian fan had - a turning pitch with Kumble from one end and Bhajji from the other. But retirement in one case, and a proclivity to bowl flat yorkers in the other, led to this advantage also vanishing. While the optimist might take some comfort in the two recent home series wins against Australia and WI, one suspects those wounds were more self inflicted by the opposition than of our doing. I believe that if Aus were to tour India in Feb of 2014 rather than 2013, the series might have been far more competitive.
Also, really good bowlers can reduce the impact of the pitch to a great extent. During England's recent series win in India, James Anderson was cited a huge factor by both captains and the series had no matches at Trent Bridge, Headingly or Lords. Dale Steyn, Marshall and McGrath managed to influence series' in India whenever they played, and India did not roll out Barbados or Centurion for them. As we have seen recently, the pitch doesnt seem to matter to Mitchell Johnson whose best performance this summer has been at the sub-continental Adelaide.
In fact, the biggest worry for Indian fans was how they would replace the retired batting greats, and after just 4 tests away the batting already looks in fairly safe hands for the next 8-10 years. There was never a fear of replacing bowling greats, because in the true sense, India never had them - outside of Kumble at home.
The bottom line is that India could field a batting line up of Gavaskar-Sehwag-Dravid-Sachin-Pujara-Kohli and the results wouldn't look much different that they historically have, if they played against top class bowling attacks. After all, a bowler has the entire day to dismiss the batsman, whereas the batsman needs to play error free for an average of 270 balls to last an entire day. Even basic probability will tell you who has a greater chance of impacting the results.
So till such time that India can field a world class test match bowling attack, regardless of how good the batsmen are, India will remain at best an above-average, competitive test side and at worst, an absolute disaster. The likes of Kohli, Pujara and Rahane will score truck loads of runs the world over, and earn a lot of respect, but not correspondingly high test wins until India has a bowling attack which can consistently take 20 wickets.
Just like in basketball, where scoring /attacking is more fun to watch (and earns more endorsements and awards), it is on the bedrock of a strong defense balanced with good offense that wins titles and leads to true and sustained greatness - so in cricket, batting draws more crowds, popularity and endorsements, but the foundation of a truly great test match side is a strong bowling attack.
Buildings without strong foundations may look more attractive for a while, but often don't last very long.
But you know what else happened in Adelaide in December of 2003? Ajit Balachandra Agarkar took the only 5-wicket haul of his 26 match test career. And you know what happened a few weeks later in Sydney? Kumble and the fielding unit could not bowl Australia out.
The point I am essentially making is that such debates are moot. Test matches are won by bowlers. Batsmen can at best set up a test match win for their bowlers or save a test.
And as fans of the Indian cricket team, we have enough examples of the same. Go check any test match win, and you will find a good bowling performance in every win, though not necessarily a great century in each. This is also why Kumble is actually India's greatest test match winner, though sadly not in the category of corresponding greats from other test playing countries.
Ofcourse you might say that a perfect batting line up can chase 500 every time but the number of times even 300+ chases have happened in the history of the game should tell you how difficult such a task has been for even the greatest of batting lineups.
In fact, India's very own and recent golden age of batting did not have a great record it in terms of really big fourth innings chases. But the reverse can happen. You can be a very good test team on the back of a brilliant bowling attack and an average batting line up. Naturally, to dominate the game for a longer time and remain at the top, you would need both the departments to be firing but even then, you would need definitely need a world class bowling unit as a starting foundation.
Let us look at the great WI teams of 1980-1995. Starting from after the away defeat to NZ in 1980 and ending just before the home loss to Aus in 1995, WI played 29 series with a record of 20-0-9. Of these, in the first 20 series, their record was 15-0-5. Of these 5 drawn series, 3 were against Pakistan - 2 in Pakistan and one in the WI. The other two were away in India and NZ.
So in those ten years, only one team managed to stop the mighty WI winning a test series at home, and that was Pakistan. In fact, during a 3 year spell, Imran's Pakistan held the WI of Richards and Marshall to three 1-1 draws. If you have the time and the inclination, do check the series scorecards of these three series. You will see that there are bigger names in the WI top six than in Pakistan's, but that is nullified when Wasim, Waqar, Qadir and Imran hold Marsall, Walsh, Ambrose and friends to a draw.
Look at it another way. In the last 25 years, the strongest test teams have been Aus, SA, Pakistan, England, India and SriLanka, ordered by win percentage.
(http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=percentage_won;spanmin1=15+Feb+1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team)
Now think of all the great players in that period. The general consensus in the batting list is Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Waugh and of-late maybe Sangakkara and Chanderpaul, in no particular order. The bowling list similarly would include Wasim, Waqar, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Donald, Pollock, Steyn, Ambrose, Walsh, Kumble and so on. Do see where the Indian bowlers rank in terms of averages.
(http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=150;qualval1=wickets;spanmax1=14+feb+2014;spanmin1=15+feb+1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling)
There is no explanation for this apart from the historically inferior quality of Indian bowling. Pitches cannot be an excuse since Pakistan and SriLanka don't have pitches which are much different. Look at SriLanka's test record for the last 25 years. It is fairly impressive for a country with only 32 years of test history. But during those 32 years, for close to about 20 years, they had one of the greatest test bowlers and look how much that helped them.
India's neighbours to the west have not had a single batsman in the caliber of Sachin or Dravid in the last 25 years. But during this period, which includes India's golden period of 2006-11, and the corresponding disaster for Pakistan, India still have an inferior win percentage. India's win-loss is better but the number of draws India have are also far higher - the result of regularly observed inability to close matches which they have dominated.
(http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=win_loss_ratio;spanmax3=14+jul+2011;spanmin3=1+jun+2006;spanval3=span;template=results;type=team)
The weakness has got so worse recently that when India prepared turning pitches against England, it backfired and led to a home series loss. This was the nadir as it took away the single solace an Indian fan had - a turning pitch with Kumble from one end and Bhajji from the other. But retirement in one case, and a proclivity to bowl flat yorkers in the other, led to this advantage also vanishing. While the optimist might take some comfort in the two recent home series wins against Australia and WI, one suspects those wounds were more self inflicted by the opposition than of our doing. I believe that if Aus were to tour India in Feb of 2014 rather than 2013, the series might have been far more competitive.
Also, really good bowlers can reduce the impact of the pitch to a great extent. During England's recent series win in India, James Anderson was cited a huge factor by both captains and the series had no matches at Trent Bridge, Headingly or Lords. Dale Steyn, Marshall and McGrath managed to influence series' in India whenever they played, and India did not roll out Barbados or Centurion for them. As we have seen recently, the pitch doesnt seem to matter to Mitchell Johnson whose best performance this summer has been at the sub-continental Adelaide.
In fact, the biggest worry for Indian fans was how they would replace the retired batting greats, and after just 4 tests away the batting already looks in fairly safe hands for the next 8-10 years. There was never a fear of replacing bowling greats, because in the true sense, India never had them - outside of Kumble at home.
The bottom line is that India could field a batting line up of Gavaskar-Sehwag-Dravid-Sachin-Pujara-Kohli and the results wouldn't look much different that they historically have, if they played against top class bowling attacks. After all, a bowler has the entire day to dismiss the batsman, whereas the batsman needs to play error free for an average of 270 balls to last an entire day. Even basic probability will tell you who has a greater chance of impacting the results.
So till such time that India can field a world class test match bowling attack, regardless of how good the batsmen are, India will remain at best an above-average, competitive test side and at worst, an absolute disaster. The likes of Kohli, Pujara and Rahane will score truck loads of runs the world over, and earn a lot of respect, but not correspondingly high test wins until India has a bowling attack which can consistently take 20 wickets.
Just like in basketball, where scoring /attacking is more fun to watch (and earns more endorsements and awards), it is on the bedrock of a strong defense balanced with good offense that wins titles and leads to true and sustained greatness - so in cricket, batting draws more crowds, popularity and endorsements, but the foundation of a truly great test match side is a strong bowling attack.
Buildings without strong foundations may look more attractive for a while, but often don't last very long.
No comments:
Post a Comment